Q&A: The Decline of the Generations
The Decline of the Generations
Question
The expulsion of the Jews from France took place in 1182. It wasn’t documented on camera, and I assume that the number of documents that exist—if any—is very small. So how reliable is such an event, without testimony and tradition confirming that it indeed happened?
And from here, apparently there is a clear tradition among the Jewish people about the decline of the generations, and that it should be understood literally. Why not accept it? After all, all our historical knowledge relies on traditions and testimony.
Here is the testimony of Maimonides, of blessed memory:
“They [=the Sages of blessed memory, the Tannaim and Amoraim], peace be upon them, despite the fact that they were diligent in study, of excellent intellect and talent, associated with great people, and separated themselves from the desires of this world and all that is in it—still attributed deficiency to themselves in comparison to those who came before them. Thus they said: ‘The hearts of the earlier ones were like the entrance of the Hall, while those of the later ones were not even like the eye of a fine needle.’ How much more so us, for together with the loss of knowledge and wisdom from us, as the Blessed One foretold to us [Isaiah 29:14]: ‘Therefore, behold, I will again do wondrous things with this people, wonder upon wonder; and the wisdom of its wise shall perish, and the understanding of its prudent shall be hidden’—each one of us has been marked by four things: weakness of intellect, the strengthening of desires, laziness in study, and zeal in pursuing the affairs of this world, these four grievous afflictions. So how could we not attribute deficiency to ourselves in comparison to them?”
Answer
The decline of the generations is not a simple fact but an evaluation. You can also speak of a value-based tradition, according to which each generation should accept the values passed down to it by previous generations. If so, we would have remained with slavery and inequality for women, etc.
Moreover, there is a clear interest in portraying the early authorities as great; otherwise it would be hard to secure obedience to their words. People find it hard to accept obedience just because “that’s what we decided,” without a substantive reason. I discussed this at length in the third book of my trilogy.
And finally, even in history I don’t accept everything tradition has passed down to me (for example, stories about the Baal Shem Tov were also passed down by tradition). The question is whether it is plausible and whether there is supporting evidence.
Discussion on Answer
C. It’s like your claim that the skeptic who doesn’t believe in intuition pulls the ground out from under his own feet, because then all of science loses its right to exist. If you can’t believe our sages and the previous generations because of interests, then interests can be found behind everything—so what are we supposed to believe in?
We’re repeating ourselves. I already explained everything.
A. I didn’t say that. I said that even if Maimonides thought this, it is not a fact but an evaluation, and there is no necessity to accept it.
Beyond that, Maimonides himself, in his commentary on the Mishnah to Rosh Hashanah, writes about certain statements of Rav Saadia Gaon that he said them only as a reply to heretics and did not himself believe them.
B. He did not know the previous generations, since he is speaking about the Tannaim and Amoraim. And even if he knew them, it would still be an evaluation and not a fact.
We’ve exhausted this.
It’s possible that there really is a decline of the generations, but people who want to change what is accepted have a clear interest in portraying the earlier ones as lesser.
Tam, do you see the decline of the generations with your own eyes? Or should we “go back to the parable of the fool”? If I randomly collect and process a hundred explanations from medieval authorities exactly in their own words and a hundred explanations from later authorities, how many out of the 200 would you be able to identify as early and late on the basis of quality?
The decline of the generations is a fact.
It started back when our ancient ancestors were up there, high on the tops of the trees.
Dear Tet,
First of all, the parable of the fool is enough for me, and the parable of the fool is necessary when you believe a statement of the Talmudic text.
Another point: the Shev Shema'tata already writes in the introduction, and so do many others, that because of the impediment we have in understanding, we need great toil and enormous effort in order to understand the intention of the Creator. He gives the example of boiling oil with water, where the fire gains strength. But here’s the catch: does the fact that we arrive at definitions with lower resolutions mean that we are wiser? The opposite is true.
Let me give you a parable: a blind person, as is known, by means of his sense of touch, senses and experiences objects better than a person who merely looks at them. Therefore, from his perspective, a table is defined with the maximum understanding of what a table is—unlike the sighted person, who doesn’t need that. The sighted person simply sees the table; nothing is difficult for him. He simply doesn’t need too many definitions because it is simple for him and well photographed in his memory. Would you say that the sighted person is lacking?! Our sages already taught us that seeing is greater than hearing.
Bring me medieval authorities and later authorities and I will quickly identify who the medieval ones are, because I’ll see that what is clear to them in a few words causes me enormous effort. When they spoke about an olive-bulk and “the hand recoils from it,” they did not need definitions of temperature and milligrams.
And in this there is a tremendous decline; I really don’t see any question.
Which is better, the parable of the fool or the blind man, I don’t know, but what is clear is that they didn’t need this.
By the way, it seems to me that I once heard another idea from Rabbi MDA about the decline of the generations in the context of intuition, like a native language—knowing what is right without knowing how to explain why.
With God’s help, 14 Av 5780
There is a joke about a parrot shop. The seller offers a parrot that knows the entire Hebrew Bible by heart. The buyer asks, what’s the price? The seller answers: 500 dollars. A second parrot knows the entire Talmud by heart—its price is 5,000 dollars. Then they come to a third parrot. The seller says: its price is 20,000 dollars. The buyer asks: what does it know? The seller answers: I don’t know, but the other parrots call it “our rabbi” 🙂
And the moral is: we see the great later authorities, whose greatness in knowledge and sharpness we can grasp, and they relate with reverent respect to the great medieval authorities, who relate with reverent respect to the Amoraim, who relate with reverent respect to the Tannaim, who relate with reverent respect to the prophets, who relate with reverent respect to Moses our Teacher, who nullified himself before his Creator. It seems that great people know how to appreciate their ancient teachers, by whose foundational work those who came later built, explained, and innovated.
And this is no wonder: the foundation of Torah thought is what Moses our Teacher received at Sinai, and for that reason, the closer one stands in the “chain of transmission” to Sinai, the greater the understanding.
With blessing, Sh.Tz.
Tam, absolutely. There are lots of possibilities. Just as there is also the possibility that you believe in the greatness of the ancients so that people won’t come along and make changes. Anything is possible.
There is no indication whatsoever of the greatness of the ancient generations. You certainly don’t see it from the writings (if anything, quite the opposite). And the fact that the medieval authorities were brief proves nothing. On the contrary, on the face of it, it seems they had less complex, less sophisticated, and less intelligent thought.
Sh.Tz., regarding the understanding that depends on closeness to the source, I am definitely willing to accept that. I already wrote this in Two Wagons and elsewhere.
The Mishnah says: “Moses received the Torah from Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua, and Joshua to the Elders, and the Elders to the Prophets, and the Prophets transmitted it to the Men of the Great Assembly.” Don Isaac Abarbanel explained: “Thus the Mishnah explained the superiority of the recipients, level after level. First—the superiority of Moses and Joshua, who were called by the names sun and moon. After them—the superiority of the Elders, who were like the other stars, as though they stood in the place of the seventy elders, the men of counsel and religious court of Moses our Teacher, peace be upon him. And one level below them—in the matter of receiving the Torah—were the Prophets. And another level below them were the Men of the Great Assembly, as if the first were on the level of angels and these on the level of men. And corresponding to this our sages of blessed memory said: Greater than ‘Rav’ is ‘Rabbi,’ greater than ‘Rabbi’ is ‘Rabban,’ and greater than ‘Rabban’ is one’s own name.”
Rabbi Akiva says: “Tradition is a fence for the Torah.” Don Isaac Abarbanel explained: “For matters of Torah cannot be attained by inquiry of the human intellect, and especially the statutes of the Torah. Therefore one is obligated to receive their content from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher, up to Moses, and he from Sinai, from the mouth of the Almighty. Therefore our sages of blessed memory said that a person is obligated to state things in the name of his teacher, and they said: Jewish law does not follow the student in the presence of the rabbi. And at the end of Sotah: When the disciples of Shammai and Hillel who had not sufficiently served their teachers increased, disputes increased in Israel and the Torah became like two Torahs. All this shows that the transmission that is the tradition of sages from one to another is a fence for the Torah.”
A. Rabbi Michi, are you basically claiming, as you argued in column 321, that Maimonides too, like the Haredim, speaks without believing what he says, but only out of external needs in order to achieve the result of discipline, and it doesn’t matter what path is taken to get that result or how many lies we need to spread for it?
Do you really think Maimonides didn’t believe this?
B. Why is this an evaluation? He knew the previous generations the way we know our predecessors, and they testify that this is how it is (and the previous generations also testified to them that their own predecessors were greater).