- This topic has 22 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 10 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
I was just wondering, who decided that the period of the “Rishonim” was over and that the period of “Acharonim” started, or if there’s a source, what’s the source?
Did Rishonim consider themselves Rishonim, and did early Acharonim consider themselves Acharonim?
Basically, what’s the history of this division?
The world takes on that the last Reshonim lived in the time of the Shita Mekubetzes (R’ Betzalel Ashkenazi), and he was one of the first Achronim. I don’t know any mekoros.
The basic dividing line is the Shulchan Aruch. But it’s not a hard-and-fast rule. The Shaagas Aryeh and Gra argue on Rishonim all the time. R’ Moshe says that in theory anyone can if they have a strong enough proof.
The Gemara will often attempt to disprove the statement of an Amora from a Mishnah, Beraisa, or Tosefta. If no other Tana is known to share the opinion of the Amora, the Gemara will either explain the statement of either the Tana or Amora in such a way that they are not contradictory, or it will conclude that the opinion of the Amora has been disproved.
One of the rules upon which Talmudic discussion is based is that the words of the amora’im must always be in agreement with the teachings of the tanna’im. Thus, one of the most common questions found in the Gemara is “meisivei” – which brings a tanna’itic source like a Mishnah, baraisa or tosefta that seems to contradict the words of the amora. In his defense, the amora will have to explain how the statement of the tanna can be understood as being in agreement with his own, or else show that there is another tanna with whom the amora agrees. If the amora cannot reconcile his statement with the teaching of the tanna’im, the Gemara will conclude “teyuvta” – the statement is disproved.
The Mechaber in Kesef Mishna, Hilchos Mamrim 2:1 writes: Amorim can’t dispute Tannaim, and later generations can’t dispute Amorim because the Amorim accepted the authority of the Tannaim, and the later generations accepted the authority of the Tannaim. The Chazon Ish says that such acceptance is an acknowledgement that the earlier generations are more correct since they are wiser and closer to Sinai. (Chazon Ish, Letters 2:24) And the Maharal (Beer Hagolah 6) says that the Amoraim recognized their inferior state in relationship to the Tannaim and therefore didn’t argue with them.
In Choshen Mishpat, siman 25, there is a lengthy discussion concerning to’eh bid’var mishna. While the general thrust of the halacha concerns dayanim and situations where their piskey din can be overturned, it does shed light on our issue as well, since the assumption about a d’var mishna is that it is something than we (at whatever generation the reader find himself) may not argue against.
Mishna and gemara are accepted by all to be d’var mishna – meaning explicit piskey din in these texts ( dinim hamefurashim ). The Mechaber adds divrey haposkim. The Nos’ey Keylim have differing views as to what constitutes “haposkim”. The Mechaber, for obvious reasons, did not include himself; however, later authorities do include him. For B’ney Ashkenaz, the Rama is included. Later authorities add the Shach and S’ma.
What we see from all of this, and the nos’ey keylim as well, is that there are many areas where we do not accept disagreement, and if someone does disagree, that position is rejected.
However, we also see, that in areas where there is no clear consensus, one has latitude to disagree.
One last point: There is a discussion in the Rama about an unresolved machlokes and how to decide. Rama says that one may not choose to follow the “katan” against the “gadol”, rather follow the one who is “gadol b’chochma u-b’minyan”, with minyan defined as the one who has the most followers ( see S’ma 18 ).
And of course do not forget what Rav Zera says in the name of Rava bar Zimona in Shabbos 112b.
1. The Rishonim obviously thought they themselves were Achronim. Rashi and Rambam thought they were utterly contemporary, modern authors .
2. There is no strict rule. As with all historical classifications, it is subjective.
3. A border of around 1500 seems logical. Before you had a big kehillah and Spain, and afterwards Sefardim were those who had left Spain. Among the Christians, this was the end of the medieval period and the start of the modern period (rise of nation states, Preotestants, etc.). Among the Muslims this was the period where the Turks (rather than the Arabs) rules the Middle East. It was the period in which printing became widespread – and that was a major technological change that affected us more than most, since most goyim were illiterate.
4. Over time such definitions would likely change. If you wait long enough, we’ll probably be considered Rishonim. Playing with the dates that periods began and ended in history is something historians love to do, especially with sufficently strong beverages to encourage discussion (meaning it is about convenience, not substance). I would argue that the period of the 1940s is a major “watershed” in Jewish history, and everything before 1940 is the “past”, and post 1950 is the “present” – and maybe in a few centuries people will see it that way.
Rishonim definitely did not think of themselves as rishonim, as that is a relative term and no gadol would write something with the intent that later generations will NOT be able to argue on it.
I think it probably developed at some point due to the general writing style differences between the two groups; rishonim generally deal directly with the gemara’s shakla v’taria, and are generally much more terse and straightforward than achronim, while achronim often elaborate and focus on details in the gemora, bring up many tangential (albeit related) topics of halacha, and rarely argue with rishonim. I doubt any one individual decided, “I am (or Ploni is) the first acharon”. I think that at a certain point many of the gedolim just hesitated to argue with gedolim from previous generations, and at a certain point (possibly many years later) that hesitation was noticed and regarded as the “dividing line” between the two groups.
The Gedolim in the days of the Shulchan Aruch and shortly thereafter have agreed to accept the psakim of the mechaber and the Rema as authoritative. The Shach writes that one cannot even claim “kim li” against a psak of the Shulchan Aruch. This is akin to accepting someone as your “Rebbi”, where you follow his psakim. This is the same thing that happened when, let’s say, Klal Yisroel decided that the period of Chazal has ended after the 7th generraiton of Amorayim (Mar Zutra, Mar bar Rav Ashi, etc), and nobody from here on in can add to the Gemora. There was no “halachah lmoshe misinai” that told us that the Gemora was sealed; it was the accepted reality told to us by our Gedolim. The same thing applies to accepting the Shulchan Aruch and Rema.
4. Over time such definitions would likely change. If you wait long enough, we’ll probably be considered Rishonim. Playing with the dates that periods began and ended in history is something historians love to do, especially with sufficently strong beverages to encourage discussion (meaning it is about convenience, not substance). I would argue that the period of the 1940s is a major “watershed” in Jewish history, and everything before 1940 is the “past”, and post 1950 is the “present” – and maybe in a few centuries people will see it that way.
People already see it that way. Personally, I treat any post Rav Moshe shittos very differently than those before (or Rav Moshe himself).
This is true with holdovers such as Rav Ovadia, and without saying Rav Moshe & the Chazon Ish. It may become similar to Rav, who was both a Tanna & an Amorah.
For a thorough treatment of this issue, please read Chapter 3 of Yisrael Ta’Shma’s book “Halachah, Minhag U’metziut B’Ashkenaz: 1100-1350”. The chapter is named “Halachah K’batra’i”.
In it you will see how Rabbanim of different periods viewed themselves in relation to those who came before them. Keep in mind that by definition everyone in their time is “new, modern, and the last word”.
And yet, looking forward, Rav Kook said that all the rules and chumros based on doubts about girsa, dwindling of ability due to long golus, or “we are not baki in this bdika” (how many times in
Rama) are not destined to become permanent parts of Torah, and the function of the future Sanhedrin will be to mevarer safekos.
R’ Elchonon Vasserman hy”d in Kovetz Shiurim Baba Basra writes that in reality, an Amora can argue with a Tannah, but when the Gemoro asks it is because generally, no Amoira would argue unless he had a Tannah supporting him, although they had the ‘rights’ to argue.
Gavra, I agree to that. I think that pretty much any Gadol born before 1940 fits into the earlier category. I can’t think of anyone younger than that who has that same status.
There are two ways of looking at the border of generations. Rabbeinu Hakadosh recognized the end of an era and summed up the Torah of the Tanaim. Rabina and Rav Ashi did the same to the Amoraim. The Ge’onim ended, simply enough, with the last Gaon. The Tur did to the Rishonim what Rabbeinu Hakadosh did to the Tanaim, and Rav Ashi to the Amoraim.
We can see that the Beis Yosef doesn’t argue on the Rosh but he does disagree with the Tur at times. We live in a generation where the words of previous generations are also summed up and repackaged. We also don’t specifically argue on previous Gedolim without good company. Perhaps the dawn of the the new period begins with the Mishna Brura.
There is also the historical division — which goes hand in hand with the first approach. The Mishna ended when it got hard to continue learning in the same way that they had been doing until then. That is when we see Bavel coming into the picture. It is an obvious new era. The Amoraim ended when times changed, too. The Rishonim began with the new Yeshivos in Europe, and ended with their closing.
The Rosh escaped from Ashkenaz to Spain. After that, it is blury. The Mordcha is a Rishon, and it seems like the Maharil and his generation are also considered Roshonim. There is a continuation into the Achronim through Reb Yakov Pollak, Reb Sholom Shachna and the Maharshal. Somehow, you get the feeling that the new period begins with the Maharshal, perhaps because there is little record of anything before him.
About 150 years before the Spanish expulsion is when the situation with Anusim began in Spain. This coincides with the Tur’s generation. It came to a complete end with the expulsion. The Abrabanel, Reb Yosef Yaavetz, Ri Elbo, among other s are referred to sometimes as Kadmonim, since they don’t quite fit into either category. Perhaps, those living in this period in Europe get the same status.
In this respect, there is little doubt that the holocaust ended a period in our history. In fact, both world wars messed up the Yeshivos and the Torah situation. We started anew, and began a new era.
When did the period of “Achronim” end? Or are we still in the Achronim period today? If not, what are we in?
We don’t call ourselves names. Perhaps future generations will call those before us, the Poskim, and us — if we’re worthy of being referred to — the Achronim.
When did the period of “Achronim” end? Or are we still in the Achronim period today? If not, what are we in?
Some say the Achronic period ended with WW II and we are now in the Gedolim period.
Rabbinim who were born in Europe (Like Rav Moshe) would still be considered Achronic rather than Gedolic since he was from that generation
The present generation is always referred to as Achronim. You don’t call yourself Gedolim after Achronim. The Amoraim referred to themselves as Achronim, in regards to Tanaim and in regards to the early Amoraim. They also called their Rabbanim Amoraim. The next generation had Geonim. These names stuck as time moved ahead.
The Me’iri refers to a period of Rabanim after the Geonim. Since we named the Rishonim as such we won’t be handing over that title to the next generation. Neither is it our job to refer to ourselves with a title. You don’t write your own history.
We can speculate what future generations will do. Hopefully they’ll call us the Yotzei Galus. We might be dubbed, the Melaktim, the Hotheads, Bloggers, Misgodedim. Or, more seriously, as I said earlier, what we call the Achronim will be called Poskim. Maybe they’ll take on the Me’iri’s titles and call Rishonim, Rabbanim, which is not a time-bound name, just like Tanaim, Amoraim and Geonim.
And if the previous generation is the Poskim period we are the Morei Hara’a. Our Rabbonim are Machria more than they are Mechadesh. They are more commonly calles Morei Hara’a, and that’s a title that can stick.
The next question is, what will the Rabbonim of the next period be called? What will they be capable of? Maybe they’ll be Sofrim, since the expertise will be to be able to find a Halacha in a Sefer. (We are beginning to see this as an accomplishment.) It’s a good thing we are in Moshiach Tzaitten and it won’t come to this. Aderaba, our accomplishments will pale in comparison with that of our offspring. I hope we won’t be easy-to-point-out old-time Galus Yidden always trying to adapt to the new reality.
Moshiach must arrive within less than 250 years from now. There is hardly going to be more than a few more doros before Moshiach, anyways. And I doubt the Mechaber will be known as something other than what he’s been known as for the past 500 years — an Achron.
When was the first time the Mechaber was called Achron?
Tell me when. (And its relevance.)
Oh Joseph, don’t you love Google?
dafyomi.co.il/bmetzia/backgrnd/bm-in-005.htm
http://www.steinsaltz.org/learning.php?pg=Daf_Yomi&articleId=1942
The normal breakdown line between Rishonim and Acharonim, as I understand it, is the Spanish Expulsion which ended the Sephardi Mesorah. The separation line for Ashkenazim is harder to pin down.
The primary difference between Rishonim and Acharonim is mesorah. Rishonim explain Gemaras and the like on the basis of mesorah, i.e. the traditional understanding of the text as they received it from their teachers. This doesn’t mean that Rishonim don’t ever try and prove one reading as better than the other but for the most part they have an approach via mesorah.
Among the Rishonim there are various lines of tradition. So Rashi is part of one line, the Rambam part of another and the Ramban another still. Occasionally Rashi will argue on his mesorah because he feels its approach untenable for some reason. The Baalei Hatosafos were even more inclined to argue (or maybe we tend to have the arguments recorded more). Similarly, while usually the Rambam’s approach will mirror the Ri Migash, there will be occasional differences.
The Achronim look back not at their personal mesorah, but at the writing of the Rishonim and then try to determine what is right on each given issue as opposed to following a general mesorah for everything.
The normal breakdown line between Rishonim and Acharonim, as I understand it, is the Spanish Expulsion which ended the Sephardi Mesorah. The separation line for Ashkenazim is harder to pin down.
The primary difference between Rishonim and Acharonim is mesorah. Rishonim explain Gemaras and the like on the basis of mesorah, i.e. the traditional understanding of the text as they received it from their teachers. This doesn’t mean that Rishonim don’t ever try and prove one reading as better than the other but for the most part they have an approach via mesorah.
Among the Rishonim there are various lines of tradition. So Rashi is part of one line, the Rambam part of another and the Ramban another still. Occasionally Rashi will argue on his mesorah because he feels its approach untenable for some reason. The Baalei Hatosafos were even more inclined to argue (or maybe we tend to have the arguments recorded more). Similarly, while usually the Rambam’s approach will mirror the Ri Migash, there will be occasional differences.
The Achronim look back not at their personal mesorah, but at the writing of the Rishonim and then try to determine what is right on each given issue as opposed to following a general mesorah for everything.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.