He's Just a Historian, He Just Reports the Facts

A review of some of Mori v'Rebi Rav Marc Shapiro's shiurim

“And your eyes shall behold your master”

I generally try to avoid mentioning people by name, but due to a recent unusual confluence of people with similar names, I couldn’t resist. My dear friend and colleague Rational Traditionalist recently posted an essay criticizing Dr. Marc Shapiro. One of the commenters, who goes by “Shaul Shapira” (I think this is a pseudonym) took great exception to the essay and posted numerous comments in opposition. He especially complained about the “ongoing hatchet job” on a “scholar who did his homework”. Ok. And if any of you have read the old, defunct blog Torah Musings, you may know that there was a rather colorful and knowledgeable commenter by the name of Shalom Spira, who posted very interesting comments in a highly unique style. He was obsequiously polite, and called everybody “Rav” or “Rabbeinu”, even those who were not rabbis, and even vicious antagonists. His etiquette went further when discussing intellectuals and authors, often referring to them as “Mori v’Rebbi”.

In this post, I will give reasons to follow Moreinu v’Rabbeinu HaGaon Rav Spira’s lead, and treat Dr. Shapiro like the Rosh Yeshiva he is, rather than simply a “scholar who did his homework”. I will show that his work is full of Torah interpretations and opinions, divrei Torah and shticklach Torah that are generally not in the purview of a historian, but a Rabbi, Posek, Mashgiach, or Rosh Yeshiva. In this manner, Dr. Shapiro is doffing his historian hat and assuming the role of a Rabbi issuing Torah explanations, and thus is it would be most appropriate for me to refer to him as Rabbi Shapiro rather than his usual title of Dr. (besides for the fact that he apparently has semicha from Rabbi Greenblatt, so the title is appropriate). In addition, I will comment on his divrei Torah.

Because Rav Shapiro has so much material out there, I will probably have several posts about him, each focusing on a different paper or aspect of his work. The subject of this post will be the authorship of the Torah, starting from a recent paper, Is Modern Orthodoxy Moving Towards an Acceptance of Biblical Criticism? Just a totally neutral topic for a historian of Judaism to be engaging in, with pure academic interest, right? Nothing untoward here, although I find that he approaches the topic with a tad more zest than would be expected of a neutral bystander.

First, a bit of humor. On page 2, he writes, regarding the “change of outlook” among the Modern Orthodox regarding Biblical Criticism:

When I speak of a change in outlook I am referring to the intellectual and rabbinic leadership and the educated laity, not the masses. The masses don’t have an opinion on this matter. If they are told they have to believe in Mosaic authorship they will comply, and if they are told they don’t have to believe in it they won’t bat an eye. Theological matters are not of great importance to them.

I am sure the Modern Orthodox masses were absolutely flattered to read this statement from their Rosh Yeshiva. Or perhaps, because theological matters are of no great importance to the seething, unwashed, uneducated, drooling, dumb-as-a-pile-of-bricks masses, they wouldn't have read it in the first place. Suffice it to say that none of the insults we have lobbed at the Modern Orthodox on this blog come close to this zinger from one of their own.

Another funny line, page 4:

Before coming to written sources let me mention some unwritten ones. After I published The Limits of Orthodox Theology I was contacted by all sorts of people who wanted to talk about matters of belief. I therefore know that there are even people in the Haredi world, including one respected rabbi, who accept the findings of modern biblical scholarship. There are blogs and websites that cater to the Haredi world where you can find this as well.

Oh, is that right? Is it really true that there exist blogs and websites that cater to the chareidi world where one can find...untraditional views? What a revelation! (He wrote this back in the early days of the Internet, in 2017.) Perhaps there are also blogs and websites that cater to the chareidi word that contain...dare I say...total kefira…and, er…atheism? I don’t know, maybe Rabbi Shapiro didn't want to shock us too much.

Ok, now to the meat of the matter. On page 4, Mori v'Rebi makes a dichotomy between believing in traditional Mosaic authorship based on dogma or based on evidence. This implies that there is a wide gap between the two, that people who believe it based on dogma don't think there is evidence for Mosaic authorship, but just believe what they think they are supposed to believe. Also, the way he talks about “evidence”, it is in the negative sense, that the believer doesn’t think there is yet enough evidence for the Documentary Hypothesis. This is like deciding if we should believe in the American Revolution because of dogma, or because of we didn’t yet find evidence that it didn’t happen. Hopefully you can see how silly this dichotomy is. I can't speak for everybody, but as far as I can tell, people who believe the Torah came from Moshe actually think that this is a historical fact, not simply because they are "supposed to".

Same page, regarding the position of Rabbi Immanuel Jakobovits on this matter:

I have no doubt that Jakobovits’ position is the one held by most Orthodox Jews. That is, they do not see any evidence to convince them that the Documentary Hypothesis (or any other modern scholarly theory) is correct. But they too would agree that even if the Documentary Hypothesis were proven this would not mean the end of Orthodox Judaism, only that traditional beliefs would need to be revised, as has happened with other advances in the study of science and history.

Here the Rosh Yeshiva is not acting as a historian or a rabbi but rather exercising his considerable skills as a clairvoyant. But nevertheless he is wrong. People like us, Shomrei Torah who think the Torah is from Sinai, indeed believe it would be the end of Orthodox Judaism if it was discovered that it was not given at Sinai but rather was written by J, E, D, P, and F. We would probably start procuring voluntary premature organ donations to be enjoyed with fava beans and a nice chianti.¹ But as stated above, we consider the whole question an absurd hypothetical. Like asking what would be if it was discovered that World War II never happened, what would we do with all the Holocaust museums? What would be if it was discovered that the Israeli War of Independence never happened, what would we do with Yom HaZikaron?

Page 6:

Thus, according to Sassoon, it is not heretical to assert that a prophet other than Moses wrote a passage in the Torah, since one is still affirming that the passage comes ‘‘from Heaven." Sassoon’s viewpoint is quite significant as it opens up the door, and offers a religious justification, for higher biblical criticism. No more is Mosaic authorship of the entire Torah crucial. As long as one asserts that the Torah is from God, it does not matter if certain sections are post-Mosaic.

Again, this is not history but Rav Shapiro's judgement on a Torah matter, and an erroneous judgement at that. Saying something is not heresy is not the same as saying it is correct, or even possible. It's just saying it’s not heresy. In no way does this statement "opens up the door, and offers a religious justification, for higher biblical criticism".

The rest of that paper is an objective, fact based report of many, many Modern Orthodox thinkers who don't believe the Torah was necessarily written by Moshe. This is extremely concerning, and although it is an endless gold-mine for Irrationalist Modoxism, it is a terrible indictment of Modern Orthodoxy. Again, as with the "masses" comment, nothing we wrote about Modern Orthodoxy shows them in a worse light than the hard-hitting reporting of one of their own most important thinkers. Unfortunately, it does seem that rather of treating this like the tragedy it is, Rabbi Shapiro writes in a way that exudes enthusiasm and pep (at least in my perception), which makes me suspect that he sympathizes with their position.

Now on to the next paper, Maimonides' Thirteen Principles: The Last Word in Jewish Theology?, where Rabbeinu attempts to demonstrate that not every single Jewish person in history held of the Rambam's 13 Principles. One of the biggest problems is that he seems to think that if a source contradicts a single detail that the Rambam mentions within a Principle, that is in opposition to the Principle. This is obviously not the case. For example, the 6th Principle is about prophecy, where the Rambam also explains how prophecy works. Are those who dispute his understanding of the mechanism of prophecy in opposition to this Principle? The 12th Principle is the Messiah, where the Rambam also warns against trying to calculate the time of the Redemption. Were all those who attempted to do so in opposition to this Principle?

With that in mind, let us go to the 8th Principle, Torah from Heaven, which is probably the most significant portion of the paper. The Scrantoner Illui writes on page 12:

Rabbi J. David Bleich has correctly noted that "this principle is, in effect, an affirmation of the authenticity of the Masoretic text." It is, however, also much more than that. The principle declares that the Masoretic text established by the Tiberians is, in its entirety,  of Mosaic authorship. Consequently, it suggests, there is no such thing as a history of the Pentateuchal text, i.e. of the development of the textus receptor. As with the other principles, one who denies this, or even expresses doubt with regard to it, is, according to Maimonides, a heretic without a share in the World to Come."

Well, too bad, Rabbi Bleich is actually not correct about that, and Rabbi Shapiro is incorrect in agreeing with him. In the footnote Rabbi Shapiro adds:

The standard version of Maimonides' commentary on the Mishnah does not contain the words "this entire Torah which is found in our hands today." It does appear in the accurate Kafih edition as well as in the ani ma'amin. Not having the correct text of Maimonides' eighth principle, Hirschenson, op. oft., 234-35, was able to argue that Maimonides' could not have put forth the accuracy of the Masoretic text as dogma.

This whole “contradiction” is an interpretation of what the Rambam means, and an erroneous one. The Rambam doesn't say that the Masoretic text is 100% accurate, and the words "This entire Torah which is found in our hands today" don't necessarily mean that at all. As Mori v'Rebi himself notes subsequently, the Rambam was well aware of different versions of the Torah. Therefore, the next four pages which discuss this are a waste, since the existence of typographical errors and different versions obviously doesn't contradict the Principle. Rabbi Shapiro subsequently quotes Rabbi Weinberg on page 17 who makes this point, but then goes ahead with his own thesis, which we will discuss soon.

Page 15:

There is an opinion in the Talmud, accepted by many post-talmudic authorities, that Joshua wrote the last eight verses in the Pentateuch. R. Joseph ibn Migash, a figure whose influence on Maimonides was enormous, stands out as one who accepts this opinion. R. Zevi Hirsch Ashkenazi explains that, according to this view, and in total opposition to Maimonides' principle, the last eight verses' revelatory status is not equivalent to that of the rest of the Torah.

The idea that this suggestion is in total opposition to Maimonides' principle goes back to what we mentioned before, confusing fine details mentioned in the Principles with the Principles themselves. Here, the Principle is that the entire Torah we have is from Heaven. True, the Rambam mentions also mentions it was from Moshe who was like a scribe who heard from Hashem and wrote as instructed. However, Moshe, which was the point of the 7th Principle, is clearly not the Rambam's main point in this one. In this Principle, the Rambam is stating that the "Torah is from Heaven" and goes on to explain how Moshe didn't write it on his own accord, about the great meaning of every verse in the Torah, and about the Oral Laws that were also taught to Moshe. Clearly, the concept being taught here is not the "scribe" or even "Moshe" (which was already covered by the 7th principle), but that the Torah, both written and oral came straight from God, through His messenger, who recorded every word. This is apparent in the Sefer Haikkarim, who records the 8th principle as simply "Torah from Heaven", and doesn't mention Moshe in reference to this Principle, but as a different Principle. It is also clear in the teshuva of Rav Moshe Feinstein about the commentary of Rav Yehuda Hachasid, who references the 8th Principle, and then without missing a beat, cites the Gemara about the last 8 verses, obviously not believing there is any contradiction.

Page 16-17:

Ibn Ezra is not unique in this regard among important Rishonim. A leading Ashkenazic sage, R. Avigdor Katz (thirteenth century), also maintains that there are post-Mosaic additions in the Torah inserted by the anshei kenesset ha-gedolah. Indeed, R. Judah he-Hasid had earlier expressed agreement with this position. In addition, R. Judah he-Hasid makes another fascinating remark. Commenting on Numbers 21: 17 ("Then sang Israel this song"), he claims that what is actually referred to is the "Great Hallel," and that in a later generation King David removed it from the Pentateuch and placed it in the Book of Psalms. This opinion is quoted without objection by the fifteenth century Kabbalist, R. Menahem Zioni. In fact, R. Judah he-Hasid's view is not unique, as can be seen from the fact that R. Avigdor Katz, in his comment on this same verse, also claims to have heard that it refers to the “Great Ballet” which was removed from the Torah by David. As with Zioni, R. Avigdor Katz quotes this view without a hint of objection. Apparently there was some tradition regarding this verse, the source and nature of which we are unaware. As for Rishonim, it is also worthy of note that R. Samuel ben Meir is reported to have believed that a portion of the Torah was added in the days of the Judges

I don’t know what the “Great Ballet” is or what it has to do with the Torah, perhaps that is why King David removed it. But like I mentioned before, the idea of post-Mosaic additions from prophets is not by itself in opposition to the 8th Principle of Torah from Heaven. Rather, it would be in opposition to the 9th Principle, that the Torah cannot be changed, along with 8th Principle, that every word of Torah is from Heaven (such that even changing isolated words or sentences would be considered a "change").² This is precisely why Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (YD 3:114) regarded this manuscript from Rabbi Yehuda HaChasid as a forgery.

I would also like to note that the statement from Rabbi Shlomo Fisher that Rav Shapiro quotes on his blog, that this is only a problem if one accepts the Rambam's principles, but Rabbi Yehuda Hachasid didn't necessarily accept them, seems like a joke (I don’t know if he actually said it). Rabbi Feinstein is not just relying on the Rambam, but bringing the Gemara that later prophets cannot change even a single letter of the Torah. Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda Hachasid would have to argue on the Gemara as well.³

Finally, we come to his thesis, pages 17-21

With this in mind, it should not strike one as surprising to read the comments of the contemporary Rosh Yeshiva of Yeshivat Ner Yisrael, R. Ya'akov Weinberg. After mentioning some of the points already made, R. Weinberg states: Rambam knew very well that there variations existed when he defined his Principles. The words of Ani Ma'amin and the words of the Rambam, "the entire Torah in our possession today," must not be taken literally, implying that all the letters of the present Torah are the exact letters given to Moshe Rabbeinu. Rather, it should be understood in a general sense that the Torah we learn and live by is for all intents and purposes the same Torah that was given to Moshe Rabbeinu. R. Weinberg is specifically referring to Maimonides' claim that our Torah scrolls are exactly the same as that of Moses. However, what about the other assertion, namely that one must believe that the entire Torah was written by Moses? It is obvious that this too must be taken with grain of salt. Not that Maimonides did not believe this. He did, but holding something to be true is very different from establishing it as dogma. By doing the latter, Maimonides would have, in effect, rendered any other opinion heretical and I believe it is clear to all that Maimonides did not regard R. Joseph ibn Migash and Ibn Ezra as heretics. That Maimonides could not have truly believed that all those who differed with this principle are heretics, is further seen from the fact that he declares in three places that one cannot decide which opinion is correct in matters of belief as one does in questions of halakhah. This does not mean that one does not offer an opinion. Maimonides decides between different talmudic views in matters of belief on a number of occasions. What he means by saying that one cannot give a halakhic decision regarding philosophical views is that one cannot render another opinion invalid and therefore forbidden to be held. We must remember that this is no different from that which occurs in halakhic matters where the opposing opinion is also not rendered invalid. It is just that, for practical purposes, one opinion must be followed. Since, with regard to matters of belief, there is no element of praxis, one cannot compel belief in one opinion to the exclusion of another.

….

Arthur Hyman has pointed out that Maimonides' understanding of "necessary beliefs" is dialectical rather then sophistic, i.e. they are "propositions which are true in some respect though not in another."207Although Hyman uses this distinction to make a different point, it would appear that it also has relevance to the problem we are discussing. In formulating the eighth principle, Maimonides was aware that it is not entirely "true." It is true that the Torah is divine and was given to Moses. It is also true that the traditional interpretations are divine. However, certain other elements are not true, only "necessary." That is, it was necessary for the masses to believe that Moses had authored the entire Torah, from start to finish.

….

Why Maimonides believed it important to insert these "necessary beliefs" into the eighth principle is clear. During his time, Muslims were strongly challenging the Jews, claiming that they had altered the text of the Torah. This accusation began with Muhammed who, as quoted in the Koran, had charged the Rabbis of falsifying and tampering with the original Torah.

….

With such an assault, it is obvious why Maimonides felt it was important for the masses to believe that their text was the exact equivalent of Moses' text. The masses could not be expected to understand the problems relating to the biblical text. Exposing them to some of this knowledge could have undermined their unquestioned faith, especially in the face of Islamic polemics. It was thus necessary for the masses to affirm what, in reality, was not true, namely, that the text of the Torah in their hands was entirely free from any textual corruptions, even unto the last detail….

After quoting Rabbi Weinberg, who is saying that “the entire Torah which is in our hands” does not preclude typographical errors and different versions, the Gaon m’Pennsylvania somehow goes… somewhere completely different. And his conclusion is the fascinating and original theory that… the Rambam didn’t mean what he said. Does this even need to be refuted?

Finally, I will briefly discuss Rabbi Shapiro’s blog post Post Mosaic Additions to the Torah. Most of the post is documenting various manuscripts from Rabbi Yehudah HaChasid and his disciples who mentioned later additions to the Torah from the Men of the Great Assembly. The Sar HaTorah writes:

This interpretation is already found in R. Judah he-Hasid and R. Avigdor Katz, who think that these verses were written in the days of Anshei Keneset ha-Gedolah. According to a medieval Tosafist collection of Torah commentaries, this view was also held by R. Samuel ben Meir (Rashbam).[[14] It is thus obvious that this was a common interpretation in medieval Ashkenaz, and as more medieval manuscripts are published we will no doubt find more such “critical” interpretations.

…..

With all the evidence that we now have, and as mentioned more will no doubt be forthcoming as additional manuscripts are published, it is clear that the viewpoint that there are limited post-Mosaic additions in the Torah was considered acceptable in medieval Ashkenaz (and thus it is hard to see how it can be regarded as an unacceptable view today[21]).

Here it is apparent that Rav Shapiro has graduated from the office of Rosh Yeshiva to the level of prophecy. Perhaps by Rabbi Yehudah HaChasid’s alleged standards, he could even change the Torah himself! Therefore, just like we regularly call Neviim by their names instead of appending the title “Rav”, I think I can drop the Rabbi title and just call him Shapiro.

But his statement is very much wanting. First of all, how does Shapiro see “It is thus obvious that this was a common interpretation in medieval Ashkenaz” from an alleged statement of the very French Rashbam? Secondly, Rabbi Feinstein has convincingly argued that the limited post-Mosaic editions are kefira, and the manuscript of Rabbi Yehuda Hachasid must be a forgery. All Shapiro has is a couple of more manuscripts from his students. How can he make such a sweeping conclusion that “It is thus obvious that this was a common interpretation in medieval Ashkenaz” and “it is clear that the viewpoint that there are limited post-Mosaic additions in the Torah was considered acceptable in medieval Ashkenaz”? Is this the historical method? In any case, it’s not “hard to see how it can be regarded as an unacceptable view today”, since it’s kefira, no matter who said it.

1. See Beitza 25b

תנא משמיה דר"מ מפני מה נתנה תורה לישראל מפני שהן עזין תנא דבי ר' ישמעאל (דברים לג, ב) מימינו אש דת למו אמר הקב"ה ראויין הללו שתנתן להם דת אש איכא דאמרי דתיהם של אלו אש שאלמלא (לא) נתנה תורה לישראל אין כל אומה ולשון יכולין לעמוד בפניהם והיינו דאמר ר"ש בן לקיש ג' עזין הן ישראל באומות כלב בחיות תרנגול בעופות וי"א אף עז בבהמה דקה וי"א אף צלף באילנות:

2. The last 8 or 12 verses that Joshua wrote (mentioned above) wouldn't be in opposition to the 9th principle, since according to that view, and as Rabbi Feinstein notes, Moshe left the Torah for Joshua to finish. But prophets coming hundreds of years later to add or subtract from the Torah certainly would be.

3. I will add that this is not a case of us simply being bound to the Gemara, but it is also extremely unreasonable to suggest that the Anshei Knesses HaGedolah who considered the Torah of Moshe authoritative, and who were trying to firmly establish it, changed the words. This is not how books work when the author is considered authoritative. I cannot publish an edition of the 2023 California Building Standards Code and randomly change sentences here and there, even if I was a prominent lawyer or engineer. Well….I could try, and maybe I could get away with it if it went undetected, but if it was noticed, it would not be accepted. Anybody who accepts the historicity of the Torah from Moshe cannot think that later, lesser prophets could deliberately and publicly edit his work. Even Jesus and his disciples didn't dare to do so, not just to the Torah of Moshe, but to any of the Neviim. The same is with Mohammed, who reportedly accused us of altering the Torah, but didn’t dare trying to change it himself. Imagine the Rambam or Rashi editing the text of the Mishnah, not to amend what they believe is a copyist error, but adding and deleting lines here and there because they think the Mishnah should be updated. That is exactly what this alleged Rabbi Yehuda Hachasid is asserting, and exactly why the Rashba, Sefer HaIkkarim, Mizrachi, etc, assert that Tikkun Soferim cannot be taken literally (and if there are any who do, they are in serious error, as Rabbi Feinstein says).

Books and texts can be edited, however, by people who don’t consider the author to be authoritative. This is how you have Reform and Reconstructionist “siddurim” explicitly editing the text of Shemoneh Esrei (not just amending mistakes), something we couldn’t imagine from an Orthodox publisher.

In footnote 234 Shapiro quotes a certain Rabbi Yosef Tuv Elem, a commentator on the Ibn Ezra (not to be confused with the French Rabbi Yosef Tuv Elem) who says the following:

הצפנת פענח בפירושו על "הסוד" בא"ע. על בראשית (יב,ו)

וזה לשונו של ר´ יוסף בן אליעזר טוב עלם:

"והכנעני אז בארץ" יתכן שארץ כנען תפשה כנען מיד אחר...{לשון האבן עזרא}.

פירוש: ידוע כי מילת "אז" היא רמז על זמן ידוע לעתיד או לשעבר, והנה פירושה כמו בעת הההיא, ועל ען הצורך לפרש שמלך הכנעני בעת ההיא, כי אז לקחה מיד אחר.

"ואם איננו כן יש לו סוד והמשכיל ידום" {שוב לשון האבן עזרא}

פירוש: אם לא באה מילת אז להודיע שאז תפשה מיד אחר יהיה הפירוש קשה וסתום וראוי להעלימו, והוא רמז סודו בתחילת פרשה אלה הדברים (א,ב) ופירושו הוא כי איך אמר בכאן מילת אז, שמשמעה אז היה בה אבל עתה אינו בה,הלא משה כתב את התורה ובימיו הייתה הארץ ביד הכנעני. ולא ייתכן שיאמר משה "אז" כי הדעת נותן שנכתבה מילת "אז" בזמן שלא היה הכנעני בארץ, ואנחנו ידענו כי לא סר הכנעני משם כי אם אחרי מות משה כשכבשה יהושע.ולפי זה נראה שלא כתב משה זאת המילה בכאן, רק יהושע או אחד משאר הנביאים כתבוה כאשר מצאנו בספר משלי (כה,א) "גם אלה משלי שלמה אשר העתיקו אנשי חזקיה מלך יהודה", כי אחר ששלמה חיבר הספר למה נזכר שם חזקיה שנולד אחר כמה דורות? רק היה זה קבלה בידם איש מפי איש מפי שלמה, ועל כן כתבוה ונחשב כאלו שלמה כתבו.וככה בכאן היה קבלה בידי ישראל שבימי אברהם היה הכנעני בארץ וכתב אותו אחד מן הנביאים כאן,ואחר שיש לנו להאמין בדברי קבלה ובדברי נבואה מה לי שכתבו משה או שכתבו נביא אחר, הואיל ודברי כולם אמת והם בנבואה.

ואם תאמר הנה כתוב לא תוסיף עליו (דברים יג,א)

התשובה דע כי ר´ אברהם בעצמו פירש זה בפרשת ואתחנן (דברים ה,ה) כי המילות הם כגופות, והטעמים כנשמות, ועל כן יש פרשיות שנכתבו בתורה פעמיים גם שלוש, ויש באחת תוספת על האחרת ואינו נחשב התוספת. ועוד, כי בפירושו הראשון בפרשת לך לך (יב,ד) אמר כי לא נאמר לא תוסיף עליו רק על המצוות, כלומר, מה שהזהירה תורה לא תוסיף עליו לא הזהירה כי אם על מס´ המצוות ועל עיקרם אבל לא על המילות, על כן אם הוסיף נביא מילה או מילות לבאר הדבר כאשר שמע מפי הקבלה אין זו תוספת.

והראיה מן הזקנים שתרגמו התורה בלשון יוני לתלמי כאשר הזכרתי בפרשת נח שששינו י"ג דברים, כמו שכתוב במסכת סופרים (פרק א,ט) ובמסכת מגילה (ט ע"א).

ואם תאמר: החליפו אבל לא הוסיפן התשובה הלא תראה בפסוק "וירכיבם על החמור" (שמות ד,כ) שתרגמוהו על נשא אדם, והנה שתי מילות במקום מילה אחת, וכן "את הארנבת" (דברים יד,ז) תרגמוהו ואת צעירת הרגליים, ואם תאמר מפני מלכות עשיו עשו זה - מי נתן להם רשות לשנות ולהוסיף ולגרוע בעבור אימת מלך.ואם המלך היה לומד כתיבתנו והיה רואה ששינו במקום שיש חילול השם ייהרג ואל יעבור (סנהדרין עד ע"א).

ואחר שלא חששו לכל זה התבאר כי היה בידם כוח להוסיף מילות כדי לבאר, וקל וחומר שיש כוח ביד נביא להוסיף מילה בדברי נביא לפרש דבריו, ואף כי בדבר שאיננו מצוה רק סיפורי דברים שעברו, ועל כן לא ייקרא תוספת.

ואן תאמר: עוד הנה אמרו רבותנו ז"ל בסהנדרין פרק חלק (צט ע"א) שאפילו אמר כל התורה כולה מן השמיים חוץ מפסוק זה שלא אמרו הקב"ה, אלא מפי משה עצמו אמרו,עליו הכתוב אמר (במדבר טו,לא) ´כי דבר ה´ בזה´, ויש להשיב כי על עניין המצוות כאשר אמרנו למעלה ולא על הסיפורים.

ומה אאריך אחר שר´ יהודה ור´ נחמיה דרשו במסכת מכות בפרק אלו הגולין (יא ע"א) ´ויכתוב יהושע את הדברים האלה בספר תורת אלוקים´ (יהושע כד,כו) - חד אמר : שמונה פסוקים של תורה, וחד אמר ערי מקלט, והנה זה מפורש,

ובפרק הקומץ רבה (מנחות ל ע"א) צריך עיון שם, וזה הסוד אין ראוי להודיעו לבני אדם בעבור שלא יזלזלו בתורה, כי מי שאיננו משכיל ולא ידע להפריש בין הפסוקים שנכתבו בהם מצוות ובין הפסוקים שנכתב בהם סיפור דברים.

גם בעבור האומות, שאומרים לנו תורתכם הייתה אמת, רק החלפתם אותה ושיניתם בה, על כן אמר והמשכיל ידום, כי המשכיל יודע כי זה יזיק, רק הפתאים יאשימו על ככה".

Essentially, he believes the Prophets had the ability to change the Torah like Chazal when translating for Ptolemy, that is, they were "commentators". But with all due respect to this Rabbi Yosef Tuv Elem (who I don’t believe is an authority we recognize) this sounds like complete nonsense, confusing between translation, commentary and changing the original text. According to him, we could change the Torah also, why not? Ridiculous.

There is one case where we could imagine somebody who considers the Torah authoritative literally editing it, or any other authoritative work, and this has historical precedent- censorship. We have plenty examples of the Talmud and other Holy texts being censored in order to enable them to be published (such as Oleinu). But for obvious reasons, this doesn’t seem like it should apply to the Tikkunei Soferim, which are not offensive to anybody. Were the Anshei Knesses HaGedolah concerned that nobody would accept the Torah if they contained these disrespectful expressions towards God? Seems quite far-fetched.

In any case, none of this is immediately pertinent to this particular one of Shapiro’s essays, who, to his credit, is pretty careful not tell us explicitly what and what is not acceptable.