Students Disagreeing with Teachers, Reb Elchonon

Avodah
1

Rav Elchanan Wasserman (Kovetz Shiurim Bava Basra 633) in the name of Rav
Chaim Soloveitchik - an Amora HAS THE POWER to disagree with a Tanna but would
not do so in general. We therefore assume an Amora who disagrees was
unaware of the Tanna' opinion.

(In general, Occam's Razor etc., it seems that minimising the Machlokes
brings us much closer to the truth. It's more likely that a Machlokes
hinges upon a small perspective difference than a major one. So, trying to
align the Amoraim with them established position of a Tanna is just more
sensible and likely to be true.)

This only deflects the question to, and I believe this has been discussed
previously on this group - WHY?

Meaning, why is the Amora not OBLIGATED to express his opinion as he
understand the Halacha? Notwithstanding his Disagreeing with a Tanna?

See the Gemara Shavuos 31a, that a student may not withhold or delay
correcting his Rebbe (and it seems this means even in public) and this is a
subsection of MidVar Sheker Tirchok.
I believe it is also associated with Lo SachaNiFu.

As for the consideration that Amoraim felt they were on a LOWER LEVEL, it's
difficult to comprehend that, because that notion runs contrary to the
entire edifice of Talmud Torah, that pursuing truth knows no limits,
infallibility is contrary to Toirah.

Reb Moshe F I believe wrote quite a bit about this, about not just
accepting a Pesak, his own Pesak, just because he ruled liked that.

A Rebbe who dismisses a Talmid by asserting authority is doing a terrible
injustice to Toirah and to that student. Amongst the apparently acceptable
destructive comments are, "If R Akiva Eiger didn't think of that answer
......"

2

Meaning, why is the Amora not OBLIGATED to express his opinion as he
understand the Halacha? Notwithstanding his Disagreeing with a Tanna?

I am going to repost a varient of an answer I gave you on a similar topic,
when we were discussing the Maharal's objections to codes.

I think the amora is indeed oligated to express his opinion. But
there is a difference between discussions of halakhah, and of lehakhah
ulemaaseh. There would be a duty to state "lo zakhisi lehavin", and
perhaps the beis medrash would conclude that the tanna was misunderstood,
or that his words were only about a specific umdena.

There is a difference between saying "they knew this so much better than
we do, odds are any error is on our part, not theirs", and shutting off
one's mind in blind obedience. Or, silencing oneself. Or assuming they were
/never/ wrong.

We need the dialog to continue (as per the Maharal) in order to get at
what they meant. Or a what they could have meant that we can live with,
that because of our assumption of a tanna's superiority is now the most
likely interpretation of the law. Or in the case of machloqes, which of
the "they" we can make ourselves at peace with.

I believe it is also associated with Lo SachaNiFu.

With the issur against making idolaters at home in Israel?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha