Does the Rabbi know of works by people of our generation that come close to the works of the later authorities?

Absolutely. Many of them, and some even surpass them. Moreover, in depth of analysis, the later authorities generally surpass their predecessors.

Let the Rabbi give an example. For instance, do the Rabbi’s own novellae surpass those of Rav Pappa or Rabbah bar bar Hana? Or do Rabbi Sherlo’s novellae surpass those of the Vilna Gaon and Rabbi Akiva Eger? Or do the novellae of some other Religious Zionist rabbi surpass the novellae of the Pnei Yehoshua and the Tummim?
That sounds a bit wildly exaggerated, even if there are things being innovated today more than in previous generations.

And let us say amen!

Thank you very much.
As is his way, the Rabbi slaughters sacred cows. At least for me, this is the slaughter of a very sacred cow. Truthfully, with every question to the Rabbi, one has to be ready for this kind of slaughter and to challenge fixed patterns of thought—and that’s a good thing.
But for the sake of understanding, can the Rabbi point to a contemporary book that, in scope and depth, competes with the scope and depth of the Minhat Hinukh, for example, or the Tummim and Rabbi Akiva Eger and the like?

The correct comparison between periods is not according to a relatively short and accidental stretch of time. When people compare Rabbi Akiva Eger and others like him, they are taking a few stars from a fairly long period. So too, for comparison, our generation can include Rabbis Elyashiv, Feinstein, Auerbach, and others (and besides them a few more from the generation before them), and then it is hard to find a dramatic difference.

This is the kind of question that there is no point discussing. You can argue until tomorrow about every example—whether it is similar or not, superior or not, and so on. Whoever does not agree—health to him. Whoever thinks like I do knows that this is true of almost every analytical Torah book published nowadays, and no examples are needed.

Is the Rabbi saying that modern lomdus is necessarily preferable to the old style of learning that prevailed before the yeshiva era? Because as much as the vision of lomdus has broken through in our generation, all the same it is only a style of learning, and not necessarily one whose results surpass the old method of learning. The style of the lomdim contributes to the learner on the personal level, and people say it was created so they could get to the bottom of things even without broad and comprehensive knowledge of the entire Talmud. But did this style of learning lead to the creation of works that are our daily bread, like Rabbi Akiva Eger? Does one nowadays—even setting aside any intrinsic value of “yeshivish lomdus”—see a greater literary contribution to the treasury of Torah books than in the past? And I’m not talking about examples, but about a broad look at the shelves of history: how many foundational books were written in which century, and the thought of what we would do without them. (Of course this includes all the commentaries on the Shulhan Arukh, etc.) But the same is true of works on the Talmud.
With the blessing: if the early ones were like angels, then we are like men; and if the later ones are like the early ones…

It seems to me that I explained my claim well enough. I did not say that the way of the later authorities is preferable in terms of its results. I said that they were no less sharp, and perhaps sharper, than the medieval authorities. That is all. As for preference, that can be discussed separately.

All right, let’s discuss that separately.

It is obvious that the Rabbi is right about this. The reason we do not have many foundational books from our own generations is lack of authority, not lack of wisdom. We do not regard the books published nowadays as highly as people will regard them in another hundred years. And if Rabbi Elyashiv, for example, had lived two or three hundred years ago, he would have had no problem composing a work like the Taz or the Bah, and his words would have been accepted in just the same way.
For example, Rabbi Gelber’s books on interest and Melekhet Mahshevet [and also Orhot Shabbat] are deeply worked-out and well-defined treatments of the subjects they cover. And even series of books that have been accepted [such as Orhot Shabbat] are commonly found despite their relative newness, and people are already beginning to engage in pilpul about understanding “their approach.”
Rabbi Kanievsky, who knew the entire Torah by heart; Rabbi Elyashiv, who knew how to pull direct answers out of every Talmudic passage he was asked about; the Hazon Ish, who delved deeply into all areas of Torah with intense analysis; Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, who analyzed every reality into its underlying reasoning and causes, etc., etc.—they do not fall short of the later authorities of earlier generations. And as time passes, the study hall will absorb their words and they will become part of the Torah world establishment.
If you really examine the *content* of the words of the Hatam Sofer and Rabbi Akiva Eger, you will not discover anything more special than many works of our own time, and that is simple. Therefore, the only reason I accept for why we do not argue with those who came before us is because of the synthetic decline of the generations, as the Rabbi said, and not because of an analytical decline.

Rabbi Michi, if it interests you: Rabbi Azariah from Fano, in Me’or Einayim (Imrei Binah, ch. 14), already suggested your understanding—that there was decline of the generations in this area, alongside advancement in the area of analysis and reasoning.

Many thanks.