Why, in your opinion, is this principle not certain and absolute? After all, the Torah scholars I know, and that many others know and acknowledge are Torah scholars in every sense, claim that their rabbis surpassed them in levels of holiness and wisdom. And those say the same about those who preceded them, and so on and so on… No one really thinks he merited to reach the level of the Vilna Gaon or anything close to it, and we would not even imagine that there was anyone close to that in the later generations…
In addition, the Sages also stated this, so how can you disagree with their words on this subject? (I am not talking about scientific knowledge, where the Sages relied on the reality of their own times).

This statement of the Sages has no halakhic implication at all, only an emotional one. We do not find anywhere that Jewish law is determined based on wisdom or age, except in topics of decrees, where one religious court has no power to uproot the decrees of another unless it is greater than it in wisdom, and perhaps in the Talmudic passage in Sanhedrin that one may not disagree with the eldest member of the court and that they begin with the youngest. But certainly there is no halakhic determination here.

All of these people grew up and were educated on the ethos of the decline of the generations. We can plainly see that it is hard for us to view someone who grew up and learned with us as significantly greater than us in Torah. That is a natural tendency, and I am not at all sure it has any root in reality. Beyond that, difficulties that the medieval authorities and great later authorities left unresolved, we can answer in many different ways, because our analytical ability is better than theirs. And that is apparently the meaning of the aggadah about Moses our teacher, who sat at the end of twenty rows in Rabbi Akiva's study hall and did not understand what they were saying.
That is regarding analytical ability. And regarding knowledge, I would be surprised if any of the great later authorities surpassed Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, for example, in encyclopedic knowledge. One must remember that Rabbi Akiva and Maimonides had far fewer sources to keep in their heads than Rabbi Akiva Eger, and than Rabbi Ovadia.
I wrote in Two Carts that perhaps the Torah intuition of the medieval authorities was greater, since they were closer to the source. But in talent — knowledge plus analytical skill — in my humble opinion there is an ascent of the generations.

Hello again, thank you for the answer.
A. This ethos of the decline of the generations did begin somewhere. And we need to understand why — if reality is the opposite. That is the first point. Second, it is hard to believe, at least when dealing with Torah scholars, that overall they just grew up on some ethos and therefore distorted reality accordingly. Take Rabbi Lichtenstein for example — how many rabbis do you know in the Religious Zionist community like him? And from his perspective he was still less than Rabbi Joseph Dov Soloveitchik. None of the great figures of the Lithuanian world — and everyone agrees these are genuine Torah scholars — sees himself at the learning level of the Chazon Ish, the Rogatchover, and so on. Rabbi Yitzchak Zev Soloveitchik did not see himself as equal to Rabbi Chaim Soloveitchik, not because he was humble, but because it truly seems it was not the same level. Of course every now and then there are flashes of Torah scholars who surpass everyone, and we could compare them to figures from earlier generations, but that is certainly not a general phenomenon at all.
B. Encyclopedic knowledge indeed is not such a great achievement… it is a matter of memory, of reading and remembering books. Do you see in that any talent or greatness of some kind? Many have already applied to this trait the well-known saying, "a donkey carrying books."
We are talking about logic, analytical ability, comparing one matter to another, and so on. Therefore I do not see in it an "ascent of the generations" that Rabbi Ovadia knew more books than Maimonides… Maimonides knew the Talmudic text thoroughly and knew how to interpret it, explain it, and derive halakhic rulings from it directly without using reference books and commentaries, but on the basis of his own logic, straightforward understanding, and analytical ability. The Talmud had to have been so familiar to him that no contradictions would arise in his interpretations, rulings, and understandings. In my opinion that is without question an ability many times greater than merely remembering books… So it is not for nothing that we read that many said the Shulchan Arukh (or perhaps the Beit Yosef, I do not remember exactly) was composed with divine inspiration and the like. This is admiration for the author’s ability to encompass so much and analyze it so straightforwardly. I find it hard to believe there are people like that today.
C. Also from a halakhic standpoint we see that "the decline of the generations" is not just a slogan. It is a principle whereby one religious court does not disagree with the one before it for this very reason. Meaning, this is an actual phenomenon. Which again, I do not see as contradicted by reality the way you present it — please correct me if I am mistaken.
Thank you.

I already corrected you, and wrote to you that in my opinion you are mistaken, and I also explained. If you do not accept it — then you do not.
By the way, Rabbi Ovadia, contrary to the standard empty Lithuanian mockery, was very, very far from being a donkey carrying books. His approach was not Lithuanian-yeshiva analysis. So what?
By the way, it is not true that this is the reason a later religious court does not disagree with an earlier one, especially since this is true only for rabbinic laws (for Torah-level laws there is no requirement at all that it be greater). See Kesef Mishneh, chapter 2 of the Laws of Rebels. On the contrary, from there there is proof against you, because when the later court is greater than the earlier one, it may indeed disagree with it, even in rabbinic laws. Meaning, the later court can be greater or smaller than the earlier one; otherwise this law would be empty of content (because "a later religious court that is greater than the earlier one" would be an oxymoron).

Hello and blessings. I am of course open to suggestions, and I am asking you in order to understand your words and then consider whether they seem plausible or forced. Therefore I allow myself to ask and to examine your words closely.
A. Regarding the beginning of what I said, I did indeed hear the explanation you offered, but I challenged it. From examples of various Torah scholars who maintain that those before them were greater than they are. And this is not only their own perspective, but also from the point of view of an outside observer — I believe that you too would agree that the Rogatchover, the Chazon Ish, Rabbi Chaim Ozer, and the like were greater than Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky, Rabbi Ovadia, Rabbi Shach, and the like. In addition, it is hard to believe that merely because of a certain ethos, Torah scholars who grew up with that ethos adopted it and were carried away by it… Can you strengthen and prove your words?
B. Heaven forbid, I did not mean Rabbi Ovadia. Rather, I meant that this trait of memory and knowledge is something important, but not the thing because of which we would consider a person a great Torah scholar, or even one at all. But since we are already on the subject, it is important to emphasize that Lithuanian analysis really does express high intellectual ability and deep analysis. One can read material simplistically and issue halakhic rulings that way, but of course that does not show any particular greatness. And therefore the Lithuanian world looks down on Rabbi Ovadia on this issue.
C. From the words of the Talmud and elsewhere it seems that such a situation is impossible, since we require that the later court be greater than the earlier one, and this is not possible because of the decline of the generations. That is how it seems in the Talmud in Megillah, where the Talmud asks (to the best of my memory) that we require the later religious court to be greater than the earlier one in wisdom and number. And seemingly, who says not? Rather, it seems from the Talmud’s perspective that this is something that does not exist because of the decline of the generations. Meaning, even though in theory such a thing is possible and that is the requirement in order to disagree with the earlier court (that the later one be greater), in practice it does not happen.
Thank you very much.

We are repeating ourselves. I explained what I had to explain.
A. I do not agree to what you put in my mouth.
B. I said that Rabbi Ovadia was not merely a man of knowledge, and the fact that he did not think in a Lithuanian-yeshiva way does not mean he was any less good.
C. Where did you see that in the Talmud? If you mean Megillah 2a, there it is speaking about the Men of the Great Assembly, among whom there were prophets. This law is brought by Maimonides and the halakhic authorities, and there is no reason to assume it is only a theoretical law. On the contrary, from there it is proven against you.
It seems to me we have exhausted the matter.

Hello again,
A. If you do not agree that the great figures I mentioned are greater than the later generations (I am not talking about knowledge of course, but about understanding, analysis, and depth), then indeed here I am not inclined to agree with you at all. My opinion is different.
B. The question is what Lithuanian-yeshiva thinking tells us. Seemingly this is a mode of thought and analysis that quite strongly expresses high intellectual abilities, unlike just a collection of rulings from various halakhic decisors in a simple way and without analyzing the sources themselves and seeing whether each one actually meant what the other said, to the point that they can be joined into a "flock of decisors."
C. Regarding the Talmud in Megillah, indeed that is the passage I mean. The Talmud there says that all the times mentioned in the Mishnah were instituted by the Men of the Great Assembly, for if you do not say so, and instead say that they instituted only the fourteenth and fifteenth, and later sages came and uprooted that enactment of the Men of the Great Assembly — that cannot be, for no religious court can nullify the words of another unless it is greater than it, etc. And the Ritva explained, and this also seems to follow from the discussion, that the meaning is: "And it is clear that no court arose greater than the Men of the Great Assembly." The fact that there were prophets there does not mean one cannot be wiser than them… as Maimonides writes in his introductions to the Mishnah, that the prophet has no advantage over the sage in interpreting the Torah. So it seems that this Talmud is not speaking in an ordinary way, because in an ordinary sense a court in our times cannot be greater due to this phenomenon of the decline of the generations. And in general, even if we wanted to say as you do — we have no way to assess which religious court is greater, and therefore this law is never anything more than theoretical.
Thank you very much.