Customer Reviews

Maimonides on the "Decline of the Generations" and the Nature of Rabbinic Authority (S U N Y Series in Jewish Philosophy)

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

In recent months, I've heard Orthodox acquaintances mention the "decline of the generations" concept, but was not really sure where it originated or what it means. Kellner addresses three issues:

1. What does the concept mean and where did it come from? Some passages in the Talmud refer to the concept; however, the Talmud is not of one mind on this issue. The clearest passages suggest that the scholars of the Talmud's generation (or at least the best scholars) are inferior to the best scholars of earlier generations. Other passages are more ambiguous; some could plausibly be read to expand the concept by referring to all Jews, others could plausibly be read to oppose the concept altogether. (As other reviewers point out, Kellner does not discuss more recent commentators on this issue in great detail).

2. Does Maimonides support the idea of an inevitable decline of the generations? Kellner argues that he does not. Although Maimoinides nowhere directly criticizes the concept, he does express a variety of views that appear at odds with it. According to Kellner, Maimonides suggests that (a) miracles tend to be rare, one-time events; (b) rabbinic statements on non-halakhic matters are fallible; c) Messianic deliverance is likely to come about through apparently natural spiritual progress, rather than through sudden Divine deliverance; and d) the Torah may have mandated animal sacrifice only because Jews were not ready for more refined types of divine service- theories that, to Kellner, seem inconsistent with the concept.

3. If Maimonides rejects this concept, why does he follow halakha? Maimonides explains that at the time of the Mishnah and Talmud, Jewish populations were sufficiently compact that all Israel could agree on the wisdom and validity of these books. Thus, Maimonides sees Jewish law (to the extent the Torah is unclear) as based on consensus. In other words, Jewish law is based on consensus rather than on the early rabbis' innate superiority.

If you are tired of the over-use of the concept "yeridat hadorot" (decline of the generations) in contemporary Orthodox Jewish thought, this book will arm you for a counter-attack!

Menachem Kellner, in his important and very clearly written book Maimonides on the "Decline of the Generations" and the Nature of Rabbinic Authority, explains that Moses Maimonides (1138-1204) rejected this notion of the decline of the generations out of hand. Maimonides was convinced that the ancient rabbis were ordinary human beings possessing no supernatural intellectual powers and that their decisions were not based on divine revelation. Maimonides recognized the authority of the earlier rabbis and accepted their decisions only because each of their rulings "derives from the role they played in Jewish history." Maimonides was thus expressing the belief that the rabbinic decisions were not correct per se, but, since the majority of Jews had decided to accept the early rabbis' halakhic decisions, they became authoritative.

Kellner compares the ancient rabbis to the eighteenth-century framers of the United States Constitution: "the framers of the US Constitution have a kind of authority which, in normal circumstances, cannot be limited or overturned." Although they were human and did not differ from all other people of their generation or people today, their authority derives from "the system of law accepted in the United States." Thus, the focus is not on the intellectual ability of the framers, but on the practical decision made by American citizens to accept what the framers wrote.

Nevertheless, Maimonides teaches that the acceptance of rabbinical statements applies only to halakhah, rules relating to behavior, but not to rabbinical opinions on non-legal matters. The reason for this conclusion should be obvious. The early rabbis' views usually relied on the science of their times, and these primitive conclusions inevitably led, at times, to error on the part of the rabbis. Therefore, Maimonides insists, one is free to analyze and consider the opinions of the rabbis and then accept, reject, or modify them; in fact, this is the very purpose for which God granted humans intelligence: to study and evaluate.

Maimonides records his assessment of the ancient rabbis and other sages of the historic period in the introduction to his Mishneh Torah. He writes that the legal component of the "Babylonian Talmud is binding on all Israel ... because all the customs, decrees and institutions mentioned in the Talmud received the assent of all Israel." Thus, only the "customs, decrees and institutions," the legal elements, received "the assent of all Israel." However, the non-legal opinions did not receive that assent and thus are not obligatory.

This is another very informative work on the part of Menachem Kellner. The issues he raises goes to the heart of what differentiates the ideologies of the three main branches of Judaism. And his interpretation of Maimonides' views of rabbinic science and how to approach possible conflicts between the Torah and science is right on the mark and was applied by myself in my TORAH AND SCIENCE (KTAV, 1990) and IN THE BEGINNING OF (JAY-EL, 2005). I highly recommend this work for any serious student of Judaism.

Like all of Professor Kellner's works, this is a cogent and well-written argument. Using a wide array of Maimonides own writings, Kellner logically follows Maimonides' lead to his logical conclusion. Many Haredim (Ultra-Orthodox Jews) are angry at his work (see as an example, one of the reviews here!), but Prof. Kellner's scholarship is highly respected within the academic community, within Modern Orthodox Judaism, and by non-Orthodox Judaism as well.

Kellner has his typical axe to grind once again. However, in this case he is in good company. Unfortunately, he does not really indicate that his entire thesis is not particularly original and can be found throughout traditional literature, particularly in the writings of the far-right R' Elhanan Wasserman and R' Abraham Isaiah Karelitz (Hazon Ish). I was particularly disappointed not to see any citations from R' Zvi Hirsch Chajes.

He also does not point out that Maimonides' thesis on this topic is implicitly against the famous Epsitle of Rav Sherira Gaon as well as R' Yehuda HaLevy's Kuzari. See Isadore Twersky's Introduction to the Code of Maimonides p. 62 ff.

Rather, Kellner prefers to score political points against the ultra-Orthodox by pretending that they are not aware of this concept.