Comentario citado sobre Eclesiastés 7:10

AND THOU SHALT COME UNTO THE PRIEST THAT SHALL BE IN THOSE DAYS — to the priest that shall be there in those days, for first-fruits, like all offerings, are given to the men of the [priestly] Division [who are assigned to the Sanctuary for a week at a time],¹⁰See Vol. IV, p. 17, Note 92. but he may not bring along a priest from his city in order to offer him his first-fruits.
Now, Rashi wrote: “You have none else than the priest who lives in your days as he is.” But I have not understood this, for in the case of an elder [of the Sanhedrin] it is proper to say [and thou shalt come …] unto the judge that shall be in those days,¹¹Above, 17:9. meaning that even though he is not as great and wise as the early judges in the ages which were before us,¹²Ecclesiastes 1:10. still he [the elder] is obligated to hearken to him [the judge], for “Jephtah in his generation is as Samuel in his generation.”¹³Rosh Hashanah 25b. The prophet Samuel is cited by Scripture as being equal to Moses and Aaron (Psalms 99:6). Elsewhere Jephthah is mentioned together with Samuel (I Samuel 12:11), thus teaching us that Jephthah in his generation was entitled to obedience just as was Samuel in his generation. But when bringing first-fruits, to whom shall he bring them if not to the priest that shall be in his days? Now, I have also seen the following text in the Sifre:⁵Sifre, Ki Thavo 298. “And thou shalt come unto the priest that shall be in those days. This is what Rabbi Yosei the Galilean says, And would it occur to you to come to the priest that is not in your days? Rather, [I must say that the verse requires one to come to] the priest who is considered by you to be established and fit in those days. Kinsmen who have ceased to be kinsmen are qualified.¹⁴This statement will be explained further on by Ramban as applying to a judge who was disqualified from rendering judgment involving a member of his family. This stricture does not apply to the bringing of first-fruits to a kindred priest who is ministering in the Sanctuary. And so it is also said, Say not thou: ‘How was it that the former days were better than these?’ ”¹⁵Ecclesiastes 7:10. The word days thus refers to “the judges of the former days.” Do not say that the judges of the former generations were better than those of the present, and therefore I would not listen to them. Instead you are to listen to them, for you are only concerned with them (Maharsha, Rosh Hashanah 25b). It appears that the Sages interpreted in this connection that if one brought first-fruits or a burnt-offering to a priest who was presumed to be qualified and afterwards it was discovered that he was the son of a divorced woman, [a defiled priest not entitled to perform the Divine Service, nor to receive the priestly gifts] the offerings are nevertheless valid, as is mentioned in the last chapter¹⁶In our text of the Gemara it is found in the third chapter of Kiddushin 66b. The tractate contains four chapters. of Tractate Kiddushin. Also included in this principle is [the rule] that a kinsman who has ceased to be a kinsman is qualified, this applying to an elder who may not be judged by a relative,¹⁷But if he ceased to be his kinsman — for example, a son-in-law [of the elder] whose wife died — he becomes qualified to judge. but it is not relevant to first-fruits.

REASON FOR THE EXISTENCE OF ALTERNATING METHODS OF LEARNING TORAH IN DIFFERENT GENERATIONS
KOHELES WRITES: Do not say, ‘How was it that former times were better than these?’ That is not a question prompted by reason. Wisdom is good with an inheritance, and even more so to those who see the sun. To sit in the shelter of wisdom is to sit in the shelter of money, and the advantage of knowledge is that wisdom preserves the life of its possessors.¹Eccl. 7:10–12.