Why do Amoraim not dispute Tannaim? Does this apply also to us, or is it something that only they were bound to?Is this fact not a proof that Amoraim
viewed the teachings of Tannaim as having been directly received from
Sinai?
This sensible conclusion is vitiated by the view of the Kesef Mishna who
states that Amoraim did not argue on Tannaim because they accepted on
themselves to not do so. At first glance this acceptance appears somewhat
arbitrary and it is important to go beyond the statement itself and ask,
"Why did they accept this upon themselves?". R. David Nieto in Mattah Dan maintains that it
was because they recognized that the Tannaim were reporting Sinaitic
traditions[1] and because they recognized that Tannaim were greater than
they in wisdom. These are clearly two very different reasons.
The same approach was independently arrived at by the Chazon Ish who
writes: "The truth is that the generation after the Mishna suffered
a declined in stature relative to Tannaim. The knew that the truth is
always with the Tannaim. Once they knew the truth of the matter that
it is impossible for them to understand something that had not been
understood by one of Tannaim, it was no longer possible to disagree
directly with Tannaim on their own authority (Letters 2:24)[2]". This statement may be delibertely formulated in such a way as to allow both of the interpretations above. In any case, whichever of the two reasonss it may be, clearly they apply also to us and in every generation.
In Matteh Dan, this claim that Sages were greater than subsequent
generations takes the scholar and Khazar into the question whether
generations are declining one after another. Khazar points out that
technological and scientific advances in our day belie the conviction
that we are less intelligent or less advanced than our forefathers. The
unstated corollary is that we do not have to follow them in matters
of religion. Uncharacteristically, the scholar avoids countering
this argument directly, responding in a convincing but limited
fashion. Apparently R. Nieto sided with the mystics to whom he alludes
within the discussion and who believed that in certain aspects the
later generations can achieve more than the earlier ones, albeit not
in areas of legal interpretation[3]. He seems to have chosen, however,
not to write so explicitly so as not to play onto the hand of scoffers.
[1] This point was made in book form by R. Z. Lampel in Dynamics of
Disputes. The making of machlokes in Talmudic times, Judaica Press,
1992. With great eruditions and scores of examples he demonstrates that
Amoraim refrained form arguing agaist Tannaim because they were no longer
certain which of their statements were Sinaitic law and which may have
been an interpretation.
[2] It is not clear if Chazon Ish disagrees with the Kesef Mishna or
interprets it; both understandings of his words are defensible. The
Chazon Ish does extend this principle to Rishonim as well. In some of
his other writings he invokes the element of Divine Spirit that rested on
the Sages throughout history. R. Elchanan Wasserman in Kovetz Shiurim 2,
Kuntres Divrei Sofrim, 2 explicitly argues with Kesef Mishna, rejects
its explanation, and interprets Maimonides differently.
[3] The principle that "generations grow smaller" is well established in
Jewish thought, so much so that it served as basis for legal decisions
(See Tslach Pesachim 116b). On the other hand, there are Chassidic and
Kabbalistic sources that allude to the fact that while early generations
were great because they were close to Revelation, later generations also
derive greatness from their closeness to Redemption. See Sod Yesharim
(Radzin) Pesach 121; A. Marcus, Hechassidut, in the name of Ba'a' Shem
Tov, pp. 14-15; R. A. Y. Kook, Orot Hakodesh 2,p. 537; Midrash Pinchas
(Koretz), p. 82. R. Tsadok Hakohen wrote that while the generations are
diminishing, total holiness within the nations as a whole continuosly
accumulates (Tsidkat Hatsadik, p. 116. See S. Sperber, Hemshekh Hadorot,
Haraya, pp. 45-46). Some say that it applies to masses but individuals
are not subject to thsi rule (R. Avraham Simch's Peirush on Zoahr Ne'elam,
Introduction)
Comments