Q&A: A fellow court — specifically a fellow court?
A fellow court — specifically a fellow court?
Question
I heard the Rabbi say in several lectures: one court cannot annul the words of another court unless it is greater than it in wisdom and in number. Number I can understand. But wisdom? How many generations later? It follows necessarily that there is no necessity of “the decline of the generations.”
A Torah scholar pointed out to me that there is an emphasis on: a court cannot annul the words of its fellow court. Specifically its fellow — meaning, in the same period — unless it is greater in wisdom and in number. For if we are talking about later generations, then the condition of being greater in wisdom could never be fulfilled. And he attributes this to Rabbenu Chananel and Maimonides. So all of the Rabbi’s proof would seem to collapse.
What does the Rabbi think about this?
Answer
I am not familiar with this Rabbenu Chananel, but in Maimonides, in my opinion, you will not find anything in that direction.
The inference from the word “its fellow” is nonsense. The intention is its peer, meaning a court of equivalent standing. See the Kesef Mishneh in the Laws of Rebels, who took it as obvious that this refers to later generations, and therefore asked from the Amoraim, who do not dispute the Tannaim, etc. And so too the Raavad, who challenged Maimonides from Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai, who annulled the words of his predecessors; and none of the commentaries answered that Maimonides allows annulment in later generations.
Discussion on Answer
Not to mention Elijah and his court.
Snomilf
That is not a proof. Rabbi Yohanan says that even if Elijah’s court were to come — which would certainly be greater than all of them — they still would not be able to annul the Eighteen Decrees. In truth, without Elijah, it is impossible that there could be a court greater in wisdom than the one that decreed the Eighteen Decrees.
Granted, it is not conclusive.
But if the Eighteen Decrees are already protected by the necessity of the decline of the generations, then there is no point in introducing an additional, unnecessary layer of protection. It is more reasonable that Rabbi Yohanan would choose an enactment/decree that is still relevant, and regarding that say the novel point that it has a new kind of protection (“its prohibition spread”).
“Elijah and his court” is an emphatic expression for any natural court that might arise in the future, because presumably Rabbi Yohanan wants to state some practical directive that has real significance; and if even such a court is impossible anyway (because it is already protected by the necessity of the decline of the generations), then his novelty is unnecessary.
See Tosafot Yom Tov on the Mishnah
https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/Mishnah_Eduyot_1_5
“If it was greater than it in wisdom but not in number, in number but not in wisdom, it cannot annul its words until it is greater than it in wisdom and in number.”
Part of what he writes:
“That no court, etc., should be greater than it in wisdom. The Bartenura explained: there will be no later court that arises after it, etc., unless it is greater, etc. And do not find it difficult how later ones can be greater than earlier ones, for we do find that Rabbah was greater than Rav Yehudah, as we say [Berakhot 20]: When Rav Yehudah came to ‘a woman who pickles vegetables,’ he would say: ‘Here I see the dialectics of Rav and Shmuel, while we study thirteen academies.’ Kesef Mishneh on chapter 2 of the Laws of Rebels.”
One can bring proof from the Talmud in its place (Avodah Zarah 36): “Rabbah bar bar Hana said in the name of Rabbi Yohanan: In all cases, a court may annul the words of its fellow court, except for the Eighteen Decrees, for even if Elijah and his court were to come, we would not listen to him. Rav Mesharshia said: What is the reason? Since its prohibition spread among the majority of Israel.”
The Eighteen Decrees were from the days of Hillel and Shammai, long before the generation of Rabbi Yohanan. So why did he need to say that specifically in this case they cannot be annulled (because the prohibition spread throughout Israel)? After all, other matters from the time of Hillel and Shammai also could not be annulled anyway, since the decline of the generations is supposedly necessary. Rather, it is clear that the decline is not necessary.