People seem to think that if Yehoshua wrote 8 pesukim in the Torah, that is a license for anyone else to add/edit/remove pesukim. It is not. The Rambam was very clear that NO ONE can add anything to the Torah. Does that mean that according to the Rambam the opinion in the gemara who says Yehoshua wrote those pesukim is kefirah? Would the Rambam say that an amora was a kofer?? Anyone who respects the mesorah knows, that the Rambam would not argue on a gemara, and he needs to explain all opinions, even those he does not pasken like. It therefore follows, that even according to the Rambam, there is an opinion that Yehoshua wrote 8 pesukim, and this is not kefirah. This is an exception to the rule. The reason for this exception is because the gemara clearly says it is (according to this opinion)! We on our own would not say something like this, but the gemara says this is what happened. This does not at all mean that anyone else can add to the Torah, and that does not at all mean anyone who cites this opinion argues with the Rambam!!
Rav Moshe Feinstein was emphatic that this commentary ascribed to R. Yehudah HaChasid was a forgery. It is kefirah to maintain that someone added anything to the Torah, and it is kefirah to say that someone removed anything from the Torah. R. Feinstein is quite clear about this!! Whatever sources Shapiro can cite that say otherwise, this is how R. Moshe paskened. Interestingly, he cites the Ibn Ezra as proof that anyone who says something can be added, should have their sefer burned. Rav Moshe clearly did not think the Ibn Ezra held that pesukim were added later!!
See שו"ת משנה הלכות חלק ט"ז ס' ק"ב for an alternative explanation of Rav Yehudah HaChasid. He too maintains that it is impossible to mean that someone added or removed anything from the Torah, and he provides an alternative explanation, without saying it was a forgery.
You have a footnote with a long quote from the sefer Tzafnas Paanayach. He is not an authority at all. Wikipedia has exactly 3 lines about him. It says that he existed, and that he wrote this sefer. That is all we have about him. It appears that this sefer was printed once, and only once (though I may be wrong about this). If that is the case, this is another example of an unknown manuscript from an author who is basically unknown. That is not an authority when it comes to re-writing what is one of the basics of our religion. This author is wrong on a few points:
1. He says that the Men of Chizkiyah actually wrote Mishlay, but it was from the works of Shelomo. The Ibn Ezra on that pasuk flat out contradicts this. This pasuk is in perek 25. The Ibn Ezra says that from this point on, it was written by the men of Chizkiyah. That implies that up until now it was NOT written by the men of Chizkiyah. The author maintains that the entire work was by the men of Chizkiyah.
2. He says the people who translated the Torah into Greek were able to add words of commentary to the Torah. The sages who translated the Torah into Greek lived after the era of prophesy. That means this author holds the sages of the mishna were able to add words to the Torah. This is a view that NO ONE holds. This alone is reason to dismiss this sefer entirely. This also contradicts what the author wrote a few lines earlier, that since it is from a Navi, he can add. The additions he now suggest, were not those of a Navi!
3. The author cites a gemara where 2 opinions are brought to explain a pasuk in sefer Yehoshua. One opinion maintains that Yehoshua wrote the 8 pesukim, one opinion maintains that he wrote the "ערי מקלט". The author seems to think that this is proof that anyone can add something!! One opinion does say that Yehoshua did write those 8 pesukim, that is well know, and Chazal say that this was an exception. The opinion that maintains it refers to Aray Miklat, is explained by the gemara to mean that Yehoshua did NOT add anything to the gemara!! I don't why this author thinks this means that he did add something, when the gemara clearly says he did not!
4. The author asks what is the difference if Moshe or another Navi wrote some words? Clearly, he forgot the gemara that says there was a qualitative difference between the level of Nevu'ah of Moshe and that of the other prophets. There is a difference between the two!
One thing I want to point out: Saying a rishon is arguing with a gemara is shvache reasoning that I would expect from a MODOX, not from happy! R Yehuda Hachassid obviously had a different interpretation of the gemara that wasn't kefira.
I hope it's okay if post this one ChatGPT generated comment, lehagdil Torah U'lahadira. I won't post a whole slew like I did last time. (The first part reminds me of Abie Rottenberg's stuff.)
===
In a land of scholars, where knowledge abounds,
There lived a historian, spreading facts around.
His name was Dr. Shapiro, a man of great renown,
He studied Jewish history, from up to down.
But there was more to him than just a historian's role,
He delved into Torah, with passion in his soul.
He wore many hats, like a Rabbi or a sage,
His words were like lessons from a different age.
He wrote about the authorship of the Torah divine,
And challenged traditional beliefs, line by line.
He questioned Mosaic authorship, with scholarly zest,
Not just a historian, he was putting it to the test.
But some did not agree, they found his words absurd,
They thought he crossed a line, his ideas were blurred.
They called him out, saying he should stick to the facts,
But Dr. Shapiro remained steadfast in his tracks.
He argued that history and Torah can intertwine,
That questioning beliefs is not a heretical sign.
He explored the depths of Jewish thought and tradition,
And sparked debates and discussions with his position.
So let us remember, he's just a historian, it's true,
But he brought forth ideas that were fresh and new.
He challenged our thinking, made us question and ponder,
And his words will echo through Jewish history, yonder.
Dr. Shapiro, the historian with a Rabbi's heart,
His work will continue to make an important part.
He just reports the facts, some may say,
But his impact on Jewish scholarship will forever stay.
User
Rewrite in the form of papal bull.
ChatGPT
PAPAL BULL
To All Faithful and Devoted Believers,
We, by the divine grace and authority vested in us, issue this Papal Bull to address a matter of great significance and concern. It has come to our attention that certain individuals, under the guise of intellectual inquiry and historical analysis, have sought to undermine the sacred foundations of our beloved faith. These individuals, led by one who calls himself Dr. Marc Shapiro, have dared to challenge the unassailable truths of our religion.
Let it be known that this so-called historian, who parades as a scholar but disguises himself as a wolf in sheep's clothing, has committed a grave transgression against our Holy Church. With audacity and presumption, he has ventured into territories that are reserved for the wise and devout custodians of our religious doctrines. Instead of confining himself to the realm of historical reporting, he has taken upon himself the mantle of a spiritual leader, issuing proclamations and interpretations that are beyond his purview.
This Papal Bull hereby declares the follies and dangers of such endeavors. We refute the notion that Dr. Shapiro's work is a mere reporting of facts, for his writings bear the unmistakable marks of a theologian rather than a historian. He has exceeded the bounds of his profession and embarked upon a treacherous path of veiled rabbinical authority.
In his audacious treatise on the authorship of the Torah, he seeks to cast doubt upon the traditional beliefs held dear by faithful adherents. He challenges the sacred Mosaic authorship, disguising his intentions behind a thin veneer of academic objectivity. By doing so, he opens the gates to dangerous doctrines that undermine the very essence of our faith. We must stand united in opposition to such heretical notions, for they strike at the core of our religious identity.
Furthermore, Dr. Shapiro's assertions regarding the Thirteen Principles of Maimonides are equally erroneous and troubling. He attempts to dismantle the foundations of our theological structure by questioning the unity and coherence of these principles. We must not allow such insidious teachings to go unchallenged, for they sow the seeds of doubt and confusion among the faithful.
Therefore, we call upon all devout believers to remain vigilant and resolute in the face of these attacks on our faith. Let it be known that the work of Dr. Shapiro, under the guise of historical inquiry, is a dangerous deviation from the true path of righteousness. We denounce his attempts to undermine our cherished traditions and call upon all faithful followers to reject his teachings.
May the blessings of the Almighty be upon us as we defend the sanctity and purity of our faith. Let our devotion and unwavering commitment be a beacon of light in these tumultuous times. May the Holy Spirit guide us, protect us, and strengthen us as we stand united in the face of adversity.
Given at the Holy See, on this day of our Lord, [Date],
Like many others, you misunderstand what it means. Saying 'he doesn't beleive in Sheidim' does not mean that he felt 'sheidim' DON'T EXIST, and nothing you cited shows differently. If the Rambam would see us today, he would certainly not believe in us either.
"The same three hashkafic considerations must be raised: (1) Ist here any inherent problem in suggesting that a passage in the Torah was revealed to a prophet after Moses? (2) Does such a suggestion in any way change the overall meaning of the Torah or the passage in question?
(3) How far may one extend this approach?—i.e., the slippery slope argument.
While some maintain that small portions of the Torah were written by
later prophets through revelation, this point has long been debated in rabbinic tradition. Marc Shapiro surveys rabbinic views, demonstrating that Jewish teaching on this subject is not monolithic.16 R. Yitzchak Blau offers a cogent critique of Shapiro’s analysis. While it is important to note
that there is a range of traditional viewpoints, it remains critical to draw
wider boundaries that incorporate the various positions since there still is
a common denominator regarding the classical Jewish belief in God’s
"modern Bible scholarship consists of much more than higher Bible criticism alone.
It also treats textual (or: lower Bible) criticism, biblical history, biblical
archaeology, modern literary theory, and more. Each of these disciplines
comes with its own set of problems for traditional Jewish teaching. Thus,
for example, textual criticism will sometimes claim that a reading of the
Masoretic text of the Torah is inferior to readings preserved in the Septuagint and the Dead Sea scrolls. Or, archaeology will claim that the camel was not domesticated in the patriarchal period, hence the references to domesticated camels in Genesis are anachronistic. Again, modern Bible scholarship does not recognize much of Torah shebal peh.
.....
Rabbi Breuer argues that the documentary hypothesis is irrelevant (theologically) because modern Bible scholars treat the Bible as a secular document, applying to it the same literary conventions they would apply to any ancient Near Eastern document. Orthodox Jews, Breuer adds, can simply respond: for us, the Torah is the living word of God, hence ordinary literary conventions cannot be applied to it. Now a proposed solution to a problem is persuasive only to the extent that it can either be verified or falsified. What would persuade a rational observer that Breuer’s proposed solution is either true or false? The answer, of course, is nothing. Since Breuer’s claim is that we do not know how divine writing works, it follows that we cannot know with certainty whether or not human literary conventions apply to divine documents. At best, Breuer’s solution to the problem raises an interesting possibility that can neither be verified nor falsified. Since, by definition, Breuer’s solution to the problem can neither be verified nor falsified, his solution remains problematic and unconvincing. On such a slender reed, the Jew who confronts the modern study of Bible will lean precariously, if at all."
"Rabbi Leff, one of the most important English language baalei machshavah in Israel, reviewed Dr Shapiro’s The Limits of Orthodox Theology, which tries to demonstrate that there was significant disagreement regarding the positions that became Rambam’s Thirteen Principles of Faith. Rabbi Leff argues that finding isolated voices who disagreed is irrelevant in the face of overwhelming acceptance of those principles over hundreds of years.
One who denies any of [the Thirteen Principles] is outside the pale of the faith community of Torah Judaism. For example, the conviction that G-d is a corporeal being is a belief that is outside the realm of Judaism, despite the fact that the Sages do not agree whether to deem one a heretic for harboring this belief.
Dr. Shapiro responds,
Which is it? Is the one who believes in a corporeal G-d (a violation of the Third Principle) a heretic, outside the faith community or simply an ignorant person who must be enlightened?…No less a figure than Rabbi Arele Roth [rejected] the Rambam’s view that such a belief turns a person into a heretic. Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook also disagreed with the Rambam, and instead adopted the Ra’avad’s more tolerant approach.
It seems to me that the essence of Rabbi Leff’s argument is that one need not be adjudged to be a heretic to nonetheless stand firmly outside the boundaries of the Torah community. The answer to Dr. Shapiro’s question is that those who maintain beliefs at the margins are not to be seen as heretics, but can be seen as beyond the pale.
We use the term “heretic” too loosely; in that regard, we would be well served to take some of Dr Shapiro’s points to heart. Simply put, however, as my friend Rabbi Chaim Eisen put it (not in the context of the exchange between Rabbi Leff and Dr. Shapiro), there are beliefs that cannot be said to be impermissible, but are still unacceptable."
"Do I have a satisfactory litmus test of what is in, and what is out? No I don’t. Not having an airtight definition does not mean that the construct is not valid. Get used to it. We don’t have the answer for everything. I still can’t really describe an electron, but I have a pretty good sense that they exist.
What are the consequences of being “out?” No direct halachic ones. Heresy is a halachic construct, and has its rules. An apikorus, min, kofer, etc cannot testify in court. Someone who is not, but stands outside the bounds of the greater community, does not suffer from that disability. But the construct still is useful. Most importantly, it defines which values and concepts we wish to transmit to our children. At an appropriate age, it is fine that they should learn about the Ralbag. But our jobs as parents are different from the vocation of scholars. To our children, we pick the values we believe are the most important for their spiritual development, and stress them. We will emphasize some more than others. And we will communicate that the Ralbag’s view simply has no traction among anshei shelomeinu."
"In another context, about psak, I heard a certain prominent rabbi say that normal people have quirks. It is the meshuggena (lunatic) who collects everyone else's quirks and takes them all upon himself. In the context of psak, this means that some Rishon or Acharon might have a weird opinion, or take on a specific issue, but that does not make them a meshuggena. The meshuggena is the one who takes the zany opinion from this one, and the strange interpretation from that one, and the quirky reading from the other one, in order to arrive at a totally kooked-out combined psak to permit what one wanted to permit.
We can transfer this to the realm of theology. More or less, Jewish theology approximates the 13 ikarei emuna. However, you occasionally have people with quirks. This one thinks God is corporeal. This one thinks specific psukim are written by Yehoshua. That one has a different conception of divine reward and punishment. The other one thinks mashiach has already come in the days of King Chizkiyahu and will not come in the future. They are all normal members of Chazal, with a quirk. It is the meshuggena who collects them all and tries to hold them all. Or, it is the historian.
I'm not calling Dr. Shapiro a meshuggena. However, I'm trying to make the point that individuals might have slightly quirky theological beliefs. But they are just that - quirks. In most instances, most of their contemporaries disagreed with them. The psychological effect of the book, which puts them all together, is that there is no mainstream theology, but rather anything goes, and went. Further, Biblical Criticism combines many of these violations, such that it is no longer a quirk."
I'm just finally having the chance to read through the comments here, and while it's a side point in the general conversation, an important debate about the Rambam's shita was brought up - anyone reading this conversation between rkz and SHmuel vs. Lou C Yaskilu sees that there a semantics game going on: all Lou was saying was that for all practical purposes the Rambam will 'argue' on the Amoraim, be it through chalking it up to a daas yachid or reinterpreting (as he does in the Torah itself as he points out in the letter), while rkz and SHmuel are claiming that he is not 'technically' arguing, hence following his own rules. You are obviously all correct.
But I have a way to explain that the Rambam didn’t actually not believe in astrology (I fear it may be apologetics, but still worth pointing out); he just held that it wouldn’t be a contradiction to free will, which is his main point. The Rambam knows that *everything* is decreed on a person but free will, he discusses this extensively in many places (I’m trying to remember where he discusses Hashem changing millions of things other than free will to accord with certain human interventions…) but he is clear that being rich or poor and on are ‘predetermined’ for the most part, short of schar v’onesh which he discusses in the letter. So I contend that it is entirely possible that the astrology the Rambam was poking fun at was the deterministic version of it. Further evidence to my theory is there are plenty of sources in Greek, and specifically Aristotelian philosophy that discuss the importance of astrology and although it does not conflict with free will at all (in accordance with the Rambam’s letter), it does affect the human condition, who is a product of his environment. (In this Greek astrology greatly differs from the one we are used to because we believe it as kind of a predetermined innate ‘nature’ effect, the ‘Mazel’ of this human, while the Greeks looked at it like a ‘nurture’ effect (as the environment affects the human condition. See Kuzari; I can provide Greek sources if there’s interest.) It could be I’m totally wrong, but it isn’t entirely ridiculous.
'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,'
No, it's not. it's pointing out what follows from *Sasoon's* viewpoint. You first need to show that Shapiro is advocating that viewpoint before attaching any such significance to it. Spoiler: he isn't.
"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?"
"The rabbinical term Ashkenazi refers to diaspora Jews who established communities along the Rhine in western Germany and northern France during the Middle Ages."
"Given the close links between the Jewish communities of France and Germany following the Carolingian unification, the term Ashkenazi came to refer to the Jews of both medieval Germany and France.[56]"
=====
"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."
What's the difference? Sounds like a whole lot of dogmatism to me. (Which is fine, but don't pretend it's some sort of logical necessity.) If Hashem gave us the mitzvos, why exactly would it matter if some pesukim were added later on by a navi?
======
"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."
Using 2023 standards for what prevailed a thousand years before the printing press was even invented is absurd. The last perek of pirkei avos was a braissa which got added on. The first 3 blatt of kiddushin were written by the savvoraim.
========
Finally, it bears citing Shapiro's conclusion in full. If you think he's trying to advocate for anything, this would be a crazy way to do it.
"Theological changes do not happen overnight. They are the product of a long period of discussion and debate, during which time new approaches are slowly absorbed. This is exactly what has been happening in a segment of Modern Orthodoxy over the past twenty years or so, and which will continue to pick up steam in the years ahead. To return to the title of the essay, I asked, ‘‘Is Modern Orthodoxy Moving Towards an Acceptance of Biblical Criticism?’’ Based upon the material I have presented, I believe that as far as some in this community are concerned, the answer is yes."
The specific criticism of Modern Orthodoxy by Dr Shapiro isn’t really surprising. He has no problem calling them out when, in his opinion, they are lacking in some way. He does it all the time.
Finally someone lucidly explains that Mosiac authorship has absolutely zero to do with the principle of תורה מן השמים.
Regarding Rav Moshe and all that. Personally I’m not comfortable writing off the various sources as forgery. The מג״א even quotes the ספר הציוני somewhere, something Rav Moshe seems to have missed.
I’d assume they don’t see these specific changes as violations of אין נביא רשאי etc because they don’t infringe on any מצוות at all. I’d like to hear your thoughts on that.
You are unbelievable! I hope to go through the 'fine print' later, but we see that leitzanus really does have a place - Megilah 25b אמר רב נחמן כל ליצנותא אסירא בר מליצנותא דעבודת כוכבים דשריא. Chazak Ve'amatz!
People seem to think that if Yehoshua wrote 8 pesukim in the Torah, that is a license for anyone else to add/edit/remove pesukim. It is not. The Rambam was very clear that NO ONE can add anything to the Torah. Does that mean that according to the Rambam the opinion in the gemara who says Yehoshua wrote those pesukim is kefirah? Would the Rambam say that an amora was a kofer?? Anyone who respects the mesorah knows, that the Rambam would not argue on a gemara, and he needs to explain all opinions, even those he does not pasken like. It therefore follows, that even according to the Rambam, there is an opinion that Yehoshua wrote 8 pesukim, and this is not kefirah. This is an exception to the rule. The reason for this exception is because the gemara clearly says it is (according to this opinion)! We on our own would not say something like this, but the gemara says this is what happened. This does not at all mean that anyone else can add to the Torah, and that does not at all mean anyone who cites this opinion argues with the Rambam!!
Rav Moshe Feinstein was emphatic that this commentary ascribed to R. Yehudah HaChasid was a forgery. It is kefirah to maintain that someone added anything to the Torah, and it is kefirah to say that someone removed anything from the Torah. R. Feinstein is quite clear about this!! Whatever sources Shapiro can cite that say otherwise, this is how R. Moshe paskened. Interestingly, he cites the Ibn Ezra as proof that anyone who says something can be added, should have their sefer burned. Rav Moshe clearly did not think the Ibn Ezra held that pesukim were added later!!
See שו"ת משנה הלכות חלק ט"ז ס' ק"ב for an alternative explanation of Rav Yehudah HaChasid. He too maintains that it is impossible to mean that someone added or removed anything from the Torah, and he provides an alternative explanation, without saying it was a forgery.
You have a footnote with a long quote from the sefer Tzafnas Paanayach. He is not an authority at all. Wikipedia has exactly 3 lines about him. It says that he existed, and that he wrote this sefer. That is all we have about him. It appears that this sefer was printed once, and only once (though I may be wrong about this). If that is the case, this is another example of an unknown manuscript from an author who is basically unknown. That is not an authority when it comes to re-writing what is one of the basics of our religion. This author is wrong on a few points:
1. He says that the Men of Chizkiyah actually wrote Mishlay, but it was from the works of Shelomo. The Ibn Ezra on that pasuk flat out contradicts this. This pasuk is in perek 25. The Ibn Ezra says that from this point on, it was written by the men of Chizkiyah. That implies that up until now it was NOT written by the men of Chizkiyah. The author maintains that the entire work was by the men of Chizkiyah.
2. He says the people who translated the Torah into Greek were able to add words of commentary to the Torah. The sages who translated the Torah into Greek lived after the era of prophesy. That means this author holds the sages of the mishna were able to add words to the Torah. This is a view that NO ONE holds. This alone is reason to dismiss this sefer entirely. This also contradicts what the author wrote a few lines earlier, that since it is from a Navi, he can add. The additions he now suggest, were not those of a Navi!
3. The author cites a gemara where 2 opinions are brought to explain a pasuk in sefer Yehoshua. One opinion maintains that Yehoshua wrote the 8 pesukim, one opinion maintains that he wrote the "ערי מקלט". The author seems to think that this is proof that anyone can add something!! One opinion does say that Yehoshua did write those 8 pesukim, that is well know, and Chazal say that this was an exception. The opinion that maintains it refers to Aray Miklat, is explained by the gemara to mean that Yehoshua did NOT add anything to the gemara!! I don't why this author thinks this means that he did add something, when the gemara clearly says he did not!
4. The author asks what is the difference if Moshe or another Navi wrote some words? Clearly, he forgot the gemara that says there was a qualitative difference between the level of Nevu'ah of Moshe and that of the other prophets. There is a difference between the two!
Overall excellent article, or Great Ballet.
One thing I want to point out: Saying a rishon is arguing with a gemara is shvache reasoning that I would expect from a MODOX, not from happy! R Yehuda Hachassid obviously had a different interpretation of the gemara that wasn't kefira.
I hope it's okay if post this one ChatGPT generated comment, lehagdil Torah U'lahadira. I won't post a whole slew like I did last time. (The first part reminds me of Abie Rottenberg's stuff.)
===
In a land of scholars, where knowledge abounds,
There lived a historian, spreading facts around.
His name was Dr. Shapiro, a man of great renown,
He studied Jewish history, from up to down.
But there was more to him than just a historian's role,
He delved into Torah, with passion in his soul.
He wore many hats, like a Rabbi or a sage,
His words were like lessons from a different age.
He wrote about the authorship of the Torah divine,
And challenged traditional beliefs, line by line.
He questioned Mosaic authorship, with scholarly zest,
Not just a historian, he was putting it to the test.
But some did not agree, they found his words absurd,
They thought he crossed a line, his ideas were blurred.
They called him out, saying he should stick to the facts,
But Dr. Shapiro remained steadfast in his tracks.
He argued that history and Torah can intertwine,
That questioning beliefs is not a heretical sign.
He explored the depths of Jewish thought and tradition,
And sparked debates and discussions with his position.
So let us remember, he's just a historian, it's true,
But he brought forth ideas that were fresh and new.
He challenged our thinking, made us question and ponder,
And his words will echo through Jewish history, yonder.
Dr. Shapiro, the historian with a Rabbi's heart,
His work will continue to make an important part.
He just reports the facts, some may say,
But his impact on Jewish scholarship will forever stay.
User
Rewrite in the form of papal bull.
ChatGPT
PAPAL BULL
To All Faithful and Devoted Believers,
We, by the divine grace and authority vested in us, issue this Papal Bull to address a matter of great significance and concern. It has come to our attention that certain individuals, under the guise of intellectual inquiry and historical analysis, have sought to undermine the sacred foundations of our beloved faith. These individuals, led by one who calls himself Dr. Marc Shapiro, have dared to challenge the unassailable truths of our religion.
Let it be known that this so-called historian, who parades as a scholar but disguises himself as a wolf in sheep's clothing, has committed a grave transgression against our Holy Church. With audacity and presumption, he has ventured into territories that are reserved for the wise and devout custodians of our religious doctrines. Instead of confining himself to the realm of historical reporting, he has taken upon himself the mantle of a spiritual leader, issuing proclamations and interpretations that are beyond his purview.
This Papal Bull hereby declares the follies and dangers of such endeavors. We refute the notion that Dr. Shapiro's work is a mere reporting of facts, for his writings bear the unmistakable marks of a theologian rather than a historian. He has exceeded the bounds of his profession and embarked upon a treacherous path of veiled rabbinical authority.
In his audacious treatise on the authorship of the Torah, he seeks to cast doubt upon the traditional beliefs held dear by faithful adherents. He challenges the sacred Mosaic authorship, disguising his intentions behind a thin veneer of academic objectivity. By doing so, he opens the gates to dangerous doctrines that undermine the very essence of our faith. We must stand united in opposition to such heretical notions, for they strike at the core of our religious identity.
Furthermore, Dr. Shapiro's assertions regarding the Thirteen Principles of Maimonides are equally erroneous and troubling. He attempts to dismantle the foundations of our theological structure by questioning the unity and coherence of these principles. We must not allow such insidious teachings to go unchallenged, for they sow the seeds of doubt and confusion among the faithful.
Therefore, we call upon all devout believers to remain vigilant and resolute in the face of these attacks on our faith. Let it be known that the work of Dr. Shapiro, under the guise of historical inquiry, is a dangerous deviation from the true path of righteousness. We denounce his attempts to undermine our cherished traditions and call upon all faithful followers to reject his teachings.
May the blessings of the Almighty be upon us as we defend the sanctity and purity of our faith. Let our devotion and unwavering commitment be a beacon of light in these tumultuous times. May the Holy Spirit guide us, protect us, and strengthen us as we stand united in the face of adversity.
Given at the Holy See, on this day of our Lord, [Date],
[Name of Pope]
[Title and Authority]
It says nowhere that Rambam denies that Sheidim exist.
I will look at what you cite, but I would have imagined that you would present something definitive from the Rambam himself.
Like many others, you misunderstand what it means. Saying 'he doesn't beleive in Sheidim' does not mean that he felt 'sheidim' DON'T EXIST, and nothing you cited shows differently. If the Rambam would see us today, he would certainly not believe in us either.
I'm posting some links/snippets which people may find useful.
https://traditiononline.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Review-Essay-Seeking.pdf
"The same three hashkafic considerations must be raised: (1) Ist here any inherent problem in suggesting that a passage in the Torah was revealed to a prophet after Moses? (2) Does such a suggestion in any way change the overall meaning of the Torah or the passage in question?
(3) How far may one extend this approach?—i.e., the slippery slope argument.
While some maintain that small portions of the Torah were written by
later prophets through revelation, this point has long been debated in rabbinic tradition. Marc Shapiro surveys rabbinic views, demonstrating that Jewish teaching on this subject is not monolithic.16 R. Yitzchak Blau offers a cogent critique of Shapiro’s analysis. While it is important to note
that there is a range of traditional viewpoints, it remains critical to draw
wider boundaries that incorporate the various positions since there still is
a common denominator regarding the classical Jewish belief in God’s
revelation of the Torah to Moses."
https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/725856/dr-shnayer-leiman/torah-min-hashamayim-recent-perspectives-on-the-divine-origin-of-torah/
http://leimanlibrary.com/texts_of_publications/70.%20Response%20to%20Rabbi%20Breuer.pdf
"modern Bible scholarship consists of much more than higher Bible criticism alone.
It also treats textual (or: lower Bible) criticism, biblical history, biblical
archaeology, modern literary theory, and more. Each of these disciplines
comes with its own set of problems for traditional Jewish teaching. Thus,
for example, textual criticism will sometimes claim that a reading of the
Masoretic text of the Torah is inferior to readings preserved in the Septuagint and the Dead Sea scrolls. Or, archaeology will claim that the camel was not domesticated in the patriarchal period, hence the references to domesticated camels in Genesis are anachronistic. Again, modern Bible scholarship does not recognize much of Torah shebal peh.
.....
Rabbi Breuer argues that the documentary hypothesis is irrelevant (theologically) because modern Bible scholars treat the Bible as a secular document, applying to it the same literary conventions they would apply to any ancient Near Eastern document. Orthodox Jews, Breuer adds, can simply respond: for us, the Torah is the living word of God, hence ordinary literary conventions cannot be applied to it. Now a proposed solution to a problem is persuasive only to the extent that it can either be verified or falsified. What would persuade a rational observer that Breuer’s proposed solution is either true or false? The answer, of course, is nothing. Since Breuer’s claim is that we do not know how divine writing works, it follows that we cannot know with certainty whether or not human literary conventions apply to divine documents. At best, Breuer’s solution to the problem raises an interesting possibility that can neither be verified nor falsified. Since, by definition, Breuer’s solution to the problem can neither be verified nor falsified, his solution remains problematic and unconvincing. On such a slender reed, the Jew who confronts the modern study of Bible will lean precariously, if at all."
https://cross-currents.com/2007/12/16/outside-the-pale/
"Rabbi Leff, one of the most important English language baalei machshavah in Israel, reviewed Dr Shapiro’s The Limits of Orthodox Theology, which tries to demonstrate that there was significant disagreement regarding the positions that became Rambam’s Thirteen Principles of Faith. Rabbi Leff argues that finding isolated voices who disagreed is irrelevant in the face of overwhelming acceptance of those principles over hundreds of years.
One who denies any of [the Thirteen Principles] is outside the pale of the faith community of Torah Judaism. For example, the conviction that G-d is a corporeal being is a belief that is outside the realm of Judaism, despite the fact that the Sages do not agree whether to deem one a heretic for harboring this belief.
Dr. Shapiro responds,
Which is it? Is the one who believes in a corporeal G-d (a violation of the Third Principle) a heretic, outside the faith community or simply an ignorant person who must be enlightened?…No less a figure than Rabbi Arele Roth [rejected] the Rambam’s view that such a belief turns a person into a heretic. Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook also disagreed with the Rambam, and instead adopted the Ra’avad’s more tolerant approach.
It seems to me that the essence of Rabbi Leff’s argument is that one need not be adjudged to be a heretic to nonetheless stand firmly outside the boundaries of the Torah community. The answer to Dr. Shapiro’s question is that those who maintain beliefs at the margins are not to be seen as heretics, but can be seen as beyond the pale.
We use the term “heretic” too loosely; in that regard, we would be well served to take some of Dr Shapiro’s points to heart. Simply put, however, as my friend Rabbi Chaim Eisen put it (not in the context of the exchange between Rabbi Leff and Dr. Shapiro), there are beliefs that cannot be said to be impermissible, but are still unacceptable."
https://cross-currents.com/2007/12/21/outside-the-pale-responding-to-readers/
"Do I have a satisfactory litmus test of what is in, and what is out? No I don’t. Not having an airtight definition does not mean that the construct is not valid. Get used to it. We don’t have the answer for everything. I still can’t really describe an electron, but I have a pretty good sense that they exist.
What are the consequences of being “out?” No direct halachic ones. Heresy is a halachic construct, and has its rules. An apikorus, min, kofer, etc cannot testify in court. Someone who is not, but stands outside the bounds of the greater community, does not suffer from that disability. But the construct still is useful. Most importantly, it defines which values and concepts we wish to transmit to our children. At an appropriate age, it is fine that they should learn about the Ralbag. But our jobs as parents are different from the vocation of scholars. To our children, we pick the values we believe are the most important for their spiritual development, and stress them. We will emphasize some more than others. And we will communicate that the Ralbag’s view simply has no traction among anshei shelomeinu."
=======
And my favorite:
http://parsha.blogspot.com/2005/02/outer-limits-of-orthodox-theology.html
"In another context, about psak, I heard a certain prominent rabbi say that normal people have quirks. It is the meshuggena (lunatic) who collects everyone else's quirks and takes them all upon himself. In the context of psak, this means that some Rishon or Acharon might have a weird opinion, or take on a specific issue, but that does not make them a meshuggena. The meshuggena is the one who takes the zany opinion from this one, and the strange interpretation from that one, and the quirky reading from the other one, in order to arrive at a totally kooked-out combined psak to permit what one wanted to permit.
We can transfer this to the realm of theology. More or less, Jewish theology approximates the 13 ikarei emuna. However, you occasionally have people with quirks. This one thinks God is corporeal. This one thinks specific psukim are written by Yehoshua. That one has a different conception of divine reward and punishment. The other one thinks mashiach has already come in the days of King Chizkiyahu and will not come in the future. They are all normal members of Chazal, with a quirk. It is the meshuggena who collects them all and tries to hold them all. Or, it is the historian.
I'm not calling Dr. Shapiro a meshuggena. However, I'm trying to make the point that individuals might have slightly quirky theological beliefs. But they are just that - quirks. In most instances, most of their contemporaries disagreed with them. The psychological effect of the book, which puts them all together, is that there is no mainstream theology, but rather anything goes, and went. Further, Biblical Criticism combines many of these violations, such that it is no longer a quirk."
I'm just finally having the chance to read through the comments here, and while it's a side point in the general conversation, an important debate about the Rambam's shita was brought up - anyone reading this conversation between rkz and SHmuel vs. Lou C Yaskilu sees that there a semantics game going on: all Lou was saying was that for all practical purposes the Rambam will 'argue' on the Amoraim, be it through chalking it up to a daas yachid or reinterpreting (as he does in the Torah itself as he points out in the letter), while rkz and SHmuel are claiming that he is not 'technically' arguing, hence following his own rules. You are obviously all correct.
But I have a way to explain that the Rambam didn’t actually not believe in astrology (I fear it may be apologetics, but still worth pointing out); he just held that it wouldn’t be a contradiction to free will, which is his main point. The Rambam knows that *everything* is decreed on a person but free will, he discusses this extensively in many places (I’m trying to remember where he discusses Hashem changing millions of things other than free will to accord with certain human interventions…) but he is clear that being rich or poor and on are ‘predetermined’ for the most part, short of schar v’onesh which he discusses in the letter. So I contend that it is entirely possible that the astrology the Rambam was poking fun at was the deterministic version of it. Further evidence to my theory is there are plenty of sources in Greek, and specifically Aristotelian philosophy that discuss the importance of astrology and although it does not conflict with free will at all (in accordance with the Rambam’s letter), it does affect the human condition, who is a product of his environment. (In this Greek astrology greatly differs from the one we are used to because we believe it as kind of a predetermined innate ‘nature’ effect, the ‘Mazel’ of this human, while the Greeks looked at it like a ‘nurture’ effect (as the environment affects the human condition. See Kuzari; I can provide Greek sources if there’s interest.) It could be I’m totally wrong, but it isn’t entirely ridiculous.
https://www.academia.edu/38286352/%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%9B%D7%A8%D7%97%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%91%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%A0%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%91%D7%9D_%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A8_%D7%94_%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%9F_pdf
A response to Shapiro about the "necessary belief" stuff
http://forum.otzar.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=13913&sid=1a8a74093708f1c3ce51004bedc4037f#p130118
'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,'
No, it's not. it's pointing out what follows from *Sasoon's* viewpoint. You first need to show that Shapiro is advocating that viewpoint before attaching any such significance to it. Spoiler: he isn't.
"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?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews
"The rabbinical term Ashkenazi refers to diaspora Jews who established communities along the Rhine in western Germany and northern France during the Middle Ages."
"Given the close links between the Jewish communities of France and Germany following the Carolingian unification, the term Ashkenazi came to refer to the Jews of both medieval Germany and France.[56]"
=====
"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."
What's the difference? Sounds like a whole lot of dogmatism to me. (Which is fine, but don't pretend it's some sort of logical necessity.) If Hashem gave us the mitzvos, why exactly would it matter if some pesukim were added later on by a navi?
======
"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."
Using 2023 standards for what prevailed a thousand years before the printing press was even invented is absurd. The last perek of pirkei avos was a braissa which got added on. The first 3 blatt of kiddushin were written by the savvoraim.
========
Finally, it bears citing Shapiro's conclusion in full. If you think he's trying to advocate for anything, this would be a crazy way to do it.
"Theological changes do not happen overnight. They are the product of a long period of discussion and debate, during which time new approaches are slowly absorbed. This is exactly what has been happening in a segment of Modern Orthodoxy over the past twenty years or so, and which will continue to pick up steam in the years ahead. To return to the title of the essay, I asked, ‘‘Is Modern Orthodoxy Moving Towards an Acceptance of Biblical Criticism?’’ Based upon the material I have presented, I believe that as far as some in this community are concerned, the answer is yes."
The specific criticism of Modern Orthodoxy by Dr Shapiro isn’t really surprising. He has no problem calling them out when, in his opinion, they are lacking in some way. He does it all the time.
Finally, finally!
Finally someone lucidly explains that Mosiac authorship has absolutely zero to do with the principle of תורה מן השמים.
Regarding Rav Moshe and all that. Personally I’m not comfortable writing off the various sources as forgery. The מג״א even quotes the ספר הציוני somewhere, something Rav Moshe seems to have missed.
I’d assume they don’t see these specific changes as violations of אין נביא רשאי etc because they don’t infringe on any מצוות at all. I’d like to hear your thoughts on that.
Excellent post.
I must’ve looked a bit odd chuckling ridiculously to myself reading why Dovid did away with the Great Ballet 😂
You are unbelievable! I hope to go through the 'fine print' later, but we see that leitzanus really does have a place - Megilah 25b אמר רב נחמן כל ליצנותא אסירא בר מליצנותא דעבודת כוכבים דשריא. Chazak Ve'amatz!