Sometimes we see in the general rules of halakhic ruling that the authority granted to sages is substantive. For example, Tosafot write in tractate Shabbat that the Jewish law follows Rabbi against his colleagues because he was wiser, and similarly with Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yehuda versus Rabbi Shimon (in Rabbi Meir’s case the problem is that his colleagues could not fully grasp his reasoning). Is there perhaps an attempt here at that kind of argument? And to phrase it differently: in your opinion, are the Tosafists inferior to Maimonides? Do you have similar views about different sages?

I don’t think it’s possible to make such sweeping determinations, certainly not without personal acquaintance and only on the basis of their works. These are different styles, and each person connects to what speaks to him.
As for the Talmudic determinations, perhaps there there was actual acquaintance, or perhaps it was a completely obvious and pronounced gap. Or maybe they too fell into the same failure as the sages of later generations after them.

The comparison between Maimonides and Tosafot is impossible because of the different styles of the works. But perhaps one could compare Rabbi Yosef ibn Migash to Tosafot, about whom Maimonides wrote in his letters that he had seen no intellect like his. There is a report in the name of the Hazon Ish that the Tosafists were greater than Rabbi Yosef ibn Migash. Does the Rabbi think so?

Did you decide to troll me? I said that I don’t engage in those kinds of measurements and that there’s no point to them.