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!
Anyone who has spent any time in a Yeshivah learning Ramabm knows that this is not true. Whenever the Rambam says something that seems to go against a gemara, dozens of commentators explain it. It is axiomatic that the Rambam would not argue on the gemara.
The Rambam is clear in his ontroduction to the Yad and to the mishna, that once the gemara was written, it is binding on all of world Jewry, and no one can add or detract from it. That means no one can argue on it, that would be 'taking away from it'.
No I have not. What do you think he says there that goes against what I wrote? The Rambam does say that we may not detract [i.e. argue] on the gemara, so whatever he does write there, does not go against the gemara.
When he feels a Gemara is incorrect, such as the Gemaras that believe in astrology, he says that that amorah was wrong and probably everyone else argued.
Well then, you are making the Rambam into an utter fool. He says explicitly that one may not take away from the gemara, so it follows that he does not contradict the gemara, EVER!
If there are different opinions in the gemara, the Rambam will pasken like one of them, but he will not argue flat out on the gemara.
The Rambam writes in the 8th rule, that the Torah came from Hashem through Moshe. The Rambam adds that there is no difference between pesukim that are names, and those that are mitzvos. He says that anyone who thinks Moshe added something on his own, is a kofer. It is quote clear that the Rambam maintained that no one can add their own commentaries and explanations!! Read it for yourself if you don't believe me!!
Read what Rav Moshe has to say inside. He does not even consider that ANYONE holds there were additions to the Torah. To him this is so obvious, that the commentary form R. Yehudah HaChasid has to be a forgery. Rav Moshe is not even willing to consider that he actually holds someone added/removed anything from the Torah. Rav Moshe was the Gadol Hador. If Shapiro wants to argue with him, why in the world should I side with Shapiro over the Gadol Hador?!?
We are talking about adding things because G-d commanding so, so I have no idea what you’re seeing there that says others, say, Yehoshua, couldn’t of added. I mean it’s quite logical for him to say Moshe when he talks about who wrote the Torah, don’t you think?
The Rambam says the entire Torah that we have comes from Moshe. Which part of that means 'but others are allowed to add if Hashem told them to"? He doesn't say most, he says all. That means no one else added anything.
“The Rambam says the entire Torah that we have comes from Moshe.”
As part of the ikkur? He does not. He happens to pasken that way in yad though so it’s understandable that he’s not getting involved in the other opinion.
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.
And I have a different interpretation of RYHC that isn't kefira. It's not shvache reasoning when it's Rav Moshe and nobody has offered a good alternative pshat.
He can do whatever he wants (just like the Rambam can say in one place that you can shave during the shloshim, or that it never says the words חרון אף except with regard to Avodah Zarah), but R' Moshe shows that he's wrong, and RYHC is not here to ask. I am fine with leaving the RYHC as shver, just like we do with Rishonim that seem to flatly contradict the Gemara all the time. Doesn't make it a valid shitta (similar argument here https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/i/102879527/but-the-rambam-said-it)
I'm curious what role R Moshe's teshuva plays in your thinking. If R Moshe hadn't ever addressed the issue, would you consider it any less unbelievable to think RYHC wrote that some pesukim were added later? Or if it turned out that e.g. R Shlomo Zalman Auerbach said that it's perfectly okay to believe it, then what? If I understand your views correctly, it's simply inconceivable to think that that could have occurred, while continuing to maintain belief in anything resembling Torah Judaism. And since you are convinced of the truth of the latter, by implication the former *must* be false. But it's a very curious epistemology to decide what someone in the 1100s did or didn't say about an event which did or didn't happen in the times of the neviim, based on anything someone said in the 20th century.
(Note, that I'm NOT questioning what the Halachic ramifications of believing it are, or even anything about R Moshe. I may be a blowhard, but I have enough sense not to say dumb things about R Moshe. My question pertains to YOUR beliefs.)
Well, I hadn't heard about the purported RYHC until I had also heard about R' Moshe, so כתובה ושוברו עמו. But as I said, there are plenty of places where the Rishonim write something תמוה, and we are content to leave it as תמוה, not say it is a valid shitta. This is how I view the alleged RYHC, with or without R' Moshe. It's shver. It makes no sense. And so it stands to reason that it's a forgery, or at the very least he didn't write it himself, but it was his son (as Shapiro mentions somebody who says this).
But even if we knew 100% that he wrote it, it still wouldn't make any sense and wouldn't have any validity at face value. We might say he was gripped by a רוח שטות when he said it, or was joking, or was a kofer at that point in his life, or simply made a serious error like R' Moshe says about the Binyan Yehoshua, or means something very deep that we can't understand. But it has no validity at face value.
* You raised a possibility from Rabbi Mordechai Breuer regarding the Ibn Ezra that might work for this also- if RYHC actually said it and meant it and wasn't a kofer, possibly he understood these lines were initially meant to be commentary from the Anshei Knesses Hagedolah and were accidentally confused with the text itself and then copied and disseminated too far before anybody noticed. Still seems pretty far fetched, but at least makes sense, they weren't deliberately changing Moshe Rabbeinu's book.
"You raised a possibility from Rabbi Mordechai Breuer regarding the Ibn Ezra that might work for this also- if RYHC actually said it and meant it and wasn't a kofer, possibly he understood these lines were initially meant to be commentary from the Anshei Knesses Hagedolah and were accidentally confused with the text itself and then copied and disseminated too far before anybody noticed. Still seems pretty far fetched, but at least makes sense, they weren't deliberately changing Moshe Rabbeinu's book."
I had meant to make that point earlier to you. I don't think anyone claims that RYHC claimed there was anything sinister involved. There was never an attempt to 'deliberately pass anything off.' And, crucially, no Mitzvos were added, nothing was deleted, and whoever added to it didn't think they were undermining Moshe Rabeinu or contradicting him in any way.
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."
"As the controversy surrounding Rabbi Zev Farber’s remarks about the authorship of Chumash heats up, it might be a good idea to examine a few points that commenters to Rabbi Gordimer’s essay have raised.
......
"3) All of this talk about heresy will not make the questions go away. Whatever his unacceptable conclusions, Rabbi Farber struggled with issues and challenges posed by academic disciplines that are situated well outside of the perimeters of Torah thought. “Outing” his conclusions without addressing the questions is not going to accomplish much!"
"Yes it will. The Orthodox community has tens of thousands of people who do respect mesorah and authority. For them, the first order of business needs to be to draw lines beyond which one cannot go. Addressing the questions is important, but it is the second order of business, not the first.
However, the commenters who raised this issue do have a point. We have not done an adequate job on the second order of business. We do have some very good people who have excellent approaches, but we do not have enough of them. For the first time in many centuries, I believe, we do not have gedolei Yisrael who throw themselves into the intellectual struggles of the day. The circles of most rigorous Torah study have so completely eschewed all other areas, that they are not familiar with the questions, let alone in a position to provide answers. That burden has shifted to people who are not at the top of the Torah pyramid, but are solid yirei Shomayim. We do need to publicize more of their output. Before we do that, however, we need to draw clear lines between what can be part of an Orthodox community, and what cannot. When a fire breaks out, our first response has to be to put out the fire – not to fire-proof the rest of the village. Rabbi Gordimer’s first piece points unmistakably to both the fire and its source."
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.
If you don't like I really can't blame you. It's very possibly incorrect as I said.
Main reason to say this because contradiction from other Rambams and Greek philosophy. No strong indication from this letter alone. His main concerns are Greek philosophy and problem with free will so it could be reasonable that he wasn't ignoring the Greek version of astrology which hasn't these issues...
The point I am trying show is an important one, and it is one that is lost on the academic who delve into gemara stduying.
When Tosfos quotes Rashi's explanation and then asks on it from various gemaras, and then gives a different explanation that fits better with the other gemaras, would we then learn the rest of the sugya saying that Rashi argues with those gemaras? Of course not! We would say that Rashi has his own way of explaining those gemaras, and Tosfos for whatever reason, rejects Rashi's answer to his questions. Tosfos feels that Rashi does not fit with those gemaras. Rashi himself would be able to provide an explanation. To us little people, we say that both Rashi and Tosfos fit with all of the gemaras, and it is up to us to explain how. In some sugyos we are able to do this, in other sugyas we are unable to explain it. Even when we can't explain it, we KNOW that Rashi does not argue on gemaras.
The academics fail to grasp this point entirely. They will say that Tosfos says Rashi argues on the gemara, and leave it at that. They will 'learn' the rest of the sugya assuming Rashi argues on that gemara. This is a setious misunderstanding of the process of the gemara and Rishonim asking from gemaras on each other.
Case in point, one of the academics (Slifkin or Shapiro, I don't remember which) says that the Rambam based his hashkafos on Greek philosophers. His source, is the Gra who says this. This is a serious misunderstanding. The Rambam would be the first to say that he DOES NOT base his Hashkafos on Greek philosophy. He feels that their philosophy and Torah true hashkafah overlap, but he does not base his ideas on Greek philosophy!
The point I'm trying to make is an important one, that the Rambam lays out in a letter the rules of what to do when your knowledge of truth conflicts with a gemara, and you very obviously did not read it.
The Rambam quotes Torah sources for his hashkafos. He also quotes the philosophers, but it is clear that the Rambam fully believed that his sources were from the Torah and Chazal, not from Greek philosophers!
The GRA (and others) maintained that the Rambam was influenced by the works of the philosophers, and this caused him to twist the Torah sources to fit with the philosophers. Although the Rambam himself would disagree vehemently with the statement of the GRA, the mainstream opinion is not like the Rambam on this idea.
He says all sorts of things from Greek philosophy, and writes in the beginning of שמונה פרקים that he won’t always tell you because people would have a problem with it (or something similar)
'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."
"No, it's not. it's pointing out what follows from *Sasoon's* viewpoint."- that's exactly what I said, that his judgement of what follows from Sasson's viewpoint is incorrect.
"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?"- It's obvious that one is just finishing off the Torah that was supposed to be finished at Moshe's death (I would say Moshe expected Yehoshua to finish it but not sure if that's necessary) and one is actually changing the Torah.
"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."- That's why I brought pre-printing presses examples as well. A braisa appended at the end of Avos is not a change, any more than having a Chumash with Targum and Rashi in it is a change. The Savoraim were at the time when the Talmud wasn't yet completed and widely dissmeninated. As I said, imagine the Rambam or Rashi changing the Mishnah or Gemara (not simply amending mistaken girsah) on their own accord. That's crazy.
"that's exactly what I said, that his judgement of what follows from Sasson's viewpoint is incorrect."
If that's all you were saying, I don't disagree. I barely know what Sasoon's approach even is. I thought you were claiming he advocates for it.
"It's obvious that one is just finishing off the Torah that was supposed to be finished at Moshe's death (I would say Moshe expected Yehoshua to finish it but not sure if that's necessary) and one is actually changing the Torah."
No it's not. They both involve additions of pesukim.
"A braisa appended at the end of Avos is not a change, any more than having a Chumash with Targum and Rashi in it is a change."
The targum and rashi are there as commentaries. That's why they tend to be on the same page, and rashi has divrei hamschil. If you had an example of them being added at the end of devarim as additional perakim, that would analogous to Perek vav of pirkei avos.
"No it's not. They both involve additions of pesukim."- Sorry, you're wrong. One is finishing off the Torah, one is changing it. I can't believe you can't see this difference.
" If you had an example of them being added at the end of devarim as additional perakim, that would analogous to Perek vav of pirkei avos."- Ok, the haftaros and Megilos are an example like that. Nobody argues this is a change to the text of the Chumash. If they inserted pesukim from Yeshaya into the text of Devarim, and this was widely accepted and became the standard Chumash Devarim, that would be a good example.
I see the difference. And one is heresy according to R Mosher Feinstein, while one isn't. I get all that. But it doesn't address the question of why that must be so as *a logical matter.* Seriously, if you became convinced that e.g. Yeshayahu wrote the census numbers in parshas Bamidbar, you'd go eat a cheeseburger? That seems crazy to me.
" Seriously, if you became convinced that e.g. Yeshayahu wrote the census numbers in parshas Bamidbar, you'd go eat a cheeseburger? That seems crazy to me."-I think it's an absurd hypothetical, like I mention in the post. So it's hard for me to talk about hypotheticals like that in a serious way.
Talk about it the same way you talk about: "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."
Replace JEPD with my example. What would your final sentence say in that case?
" If you had an example of them being added at the end of devarim as additional perakim, that would analogous to Perek vav of pirkei avos."- Ok, the haftaros and Megilos are an example like that. "
They're not continuations of anything. That's why people tend to sometimes have a hard time finding them at all. Lots of bewildered page turning and all that "oh, they put it after bamidbar??'. But if someone asked where parshas beha'aloscha is located in the Artscroll chumash, you'd think he was nuts. Because it's part of the the chumash. It's in the only place it could be.
Why are haftaros not continuations? That's literally what they read in shul after the parsha? Another example- does anybody believe Tachanun and Ashrei and Uva l'Tzion is a modification to the text of Shemoneh Esrei, and would therefore be precedent to modify Shemoneh Esrei itself?
Because no one thinks they're part of the parsha. Heck, plenty of shuls lein them from a printed nach. If they tried leining the parsha that way, they'd get heckled louder than if they tried skipping av ha'rachamim. (And also, R Dovid Feinstein's geshmake gematrios wouldn't work....)
פרקי אבות is not מסכת אבות. Nobody added anything to the mishna, only to the reading in shul. It has nothing to do with additions to a text of authority.
The גמרא was always more fluid than the משנה. A few savoraic additions (well known in the מסורה) did not impact anything.
This has nothing whatsever to do with the תורה, which was complete, binding and unchanging.
(And please don't try to compare this to חסרות ויתרות or similar questions. Equally irrelevant)
The theory that later neviim added to it doesn't make it any less binding than the fact that Yehoshua added the last 8 pesukim. The same way that the fluidity of the Gemara doesn't make it less binding. The claim under discussion isn't that any mitzvos were added to the torah. Those are the views of Tamar Ross types, not the (alleged) R Yehuda Ha'chasid.
I'll explain again, maybe this time I'll be more successful...
You said that the שיטה in the גמרא that יהושע wrote the last 8 פסוקים is a ראיה that later נביאים also added פסוקים.
I (and others) explained that יהושע was specifically מצווה to write these specific 8 פסוקים
there is no מקור in חז"ל that any other נביא or even יהושע himself, was מצווה to add any other פסוק or even one word.
Since חז"ל say that anyone who says that even משה רבינו added anything to the תורה is כפירה, tou need to bring a מקור that any נביא ever was allowed to add anything.
There is no such מקור in חז"ל (AFAIK), besides יהושע wrt to these 8 פסוקים.
So this is not a ראיה for BC but a ראיה against it.
The משנה was never considered to be קדושה במלותיה like תנ"ך. The content is indeed קדוש, but the words were those of רבותינו התנאים.
So anything about the משנה (or the גמרא) can't serve as a ראיה for BC.
You brought two examples of additions, which are completely irrelevant to BC, and the פרקי אבות one is also wrong as any sort of proof to actual additions the משנה
I'm not advocating biblical criticm. And you may well be right that saying various pesukim were added later is kefira. But if it's kfira, it's kfira because it *violates* something. By contrast, if someone adopts multiple authorship, and especially if they deny that mattan torah ever happened, that's not 'just' kfira because it goes against this or that ikar or because it's dvar Hashem baza. (And to be clear, I think those latter 2 are very very bad things.)
R Mordechai Breur made this point (or something to that effect) to Israel Knohl. If someone claims that that a few paragraphs of Shakespeare's work were added later, that's one thing. But it's fundamentally different thing than if the guy claims Shakespeare never existed, or was illiterate and plagiarized from some black lady.
“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?“
There is a very specific reason that opinion in the Gemara asserts Yehoshua finished the Torah. This would not apply to a prophet hundreds of years later. Why in heavens name (pun intended) didn’t G-d get the Torah right the first time around that He starts making tweaks on us?
(The first 3 blatt) [Parts of the first 3 amudim, that is 6&1/2 lines on the first, the entire second, & 12&1/2 lines of the third] of kiddushin were written by the savvoraim.
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.
Well there's a difference between criticizing something, and calling them all a bunch of bird brains. But hey, he did just that, so I guess you're right.
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.
Well, not zero. But it's derech agav by way of the other principles.
The fact that the Magen Avraham quotes a sefer shouldn't make a difference, Rav Moshe says over there, ok, that sefer made a serious mistake. If it wasn't forgery then Rav Moshe would be forced to say the Sefer Chassidim made a serious error as well (not the first time he would say that about Rishonim, I think) or reinterpret it like Rav Menashe Klein does.
Rav Moshe quotes a Gemara that Neviim couldn't even change מנצפך that doesn't infringe on any mitzvos. In the footnote I bring a certain Rabbi Bonfils who says basically what you are saying, I explain why I think it doesn't make sense.
“If it wasn't forgery then Rav Moshe would be forced to say the Sefer Chassidim made a serious error as well (not the first time he would say that about Rishonim, I think)”
Hey, he’s entitled to argue, but obviously they don’t think it’s an error, so we’d have to see how מוכח his arguments are. We are talking about some pretty big people so we wouldn’t write them off so easily.
It's מוכח to me, and I'm prepared to argue it! 😊. As far as I'm concerned, the fact that the Torah wasn't changed by lesser prophets is much more pashut to me than that Rabbi Yehudah Hachasid was right about something (if he said it and meant it).
Thanks. This is bringing back all sorts of memories....
יותר מסתבר ששלטו ידי זרים בספר מסורת משה, ואם בדורו של רבינו משה נחמני היו עמי ארצות בודאי לא פסו מן הארץ גם בדורו של רבינו משה פינשטיין, וכבר פקפקו רבים באיזה תשובות שנכתבו בשמו, וא"כ בודאי אותם טעותים שנמסרו בשמו כאילו יש בדברי אדונינו הרמב"ן טעותים מזוייפים, הם עצמם מזוייפים. ופשוט.
חזור למעלה
חכם באשי
הודעות: 9978
הצטרף: ה' מאי 06, 2010 2:05 am
Re: האם שלטו ידי זרים בפירושי הראשונים על התורה?
הודעהעל ידי חכם באשי » ה' יוני 20, 2013 1:07 pm
כבר ר' מנשה קליין טען, שהתשובה בה רמ"פ קובע שפירוש ריה"ח זוייף - היא עצמה מזוייפת!
I think Dovid would have to convince everybody else that Hashem commanded him to make changes to the Torah of Moshe (who I think everybody who follows the Torah understands is the אדון הנביאים). It seems very unreasonable to me that people who follow the Torah would just accept this. The Neviim were supposed to encourage people to keep the Torah, not change it. I think that's clear from the Torah itself as well as everywhere in the Neviim.
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!
“Anyone who respects the mesorah knows, that the Rambam would not argue on a gemara”
Except when he does.
Anyone who has spent any time in a Yeshivah learning Ramabm knows that this is not true. Whenever the Rambam says something that seems to go against a gemara, dozens of commentators explain it. It is axiomatic that the Rambam would not argue on the gemara.
The Rambam is clear in his ontroduction to the Yad and to the mishna, that once the gemara was written, it is binding on all of world Jewry, and no one can add or detract from it. That means no one can argue on it, that would be 'taking away from it'.
Have you read his letter on astrology?
No I have not. What do you think he says there that goes against what I wrote? The Rambam does say that we may not detract [i.e. argue] on the gemara, so whatever he does write there, does not go against the gemara.
Lol
You should read it.
When he feels a Gemara is incorrect, such as the Gemaras that believe in astrology, he says that that amorah was wrong and probably everyone else argued.
Well then, you are making the Rambam into an utter fool. He says explicitly that one may not take away from the gemara, so it follows that he does not contradict the gemara, EVER!
If there are different opinions in the gemara, the Rambam will pasken like one of them, but he will not argue flat out on the gemara.
“The Rambam was very clear that NO ONE can add anything to the Torah.“
Where?
“Rav Moshe Feinstein was emphatic that this commentary ascribed to R. Yehudah HaChasid was a forgery.“
Rav Moshe says all sorts of things are forgery. It isn’t very convincing.
“Whatever sources Shapiro can cite that say otherwise, this is how R. Moshe paskened.”
On the basis it is a forgery…
The Rambam writes in the 8th rule, that the Torah came from Hashem through Moshe. The Rambam adds that there is no difference between pesukim that are names, and those that are mitzvos. He says that anyone who thinks Moshe added something on his own, is a kofer. It is quote clear that the Rambam maintained that no one can add their own commentaries and explanations!! Read it for yourself if you don't believe me!!
Read what Rav Moshe has to say inside. He does not even consider that ANYONE holds there were additions to the Torah. To him this is so obvious, that the commentary form R. Yehudah HaChasid has to be a forgery. Rav Moshe is not even willing to consider that he actually holds someone added/removed anything from the Torah. Rav Moshe was the Gadol Hador. If Shapiro wants to argue with him, why in the world should I side with Shapiro over the Gadol Hador?!?
We are talking about adding things because G-d commanding so, so I have no idea what you’re seeing there that says others, say, Yehoshua, couldn’t of added. I mean it’s quite logical for him to say Moshe when he talks about who wrote the Torah, don’t you think?
The Rambam says the entire Torah that we have comes from Moshe. Which part of that means 'but others are allowed to add if Hashem told them to"? He doesn't say most, he says all. That means no one else added anything.
“The Rambam says the entire Torah that we have comes from Moshe.”
As part of the ikkur? He does not. He happens to pasken that way in yad though so it’s understandable that he’s not getting involved in the other opinion.
היות התורה מן השמים והוא שנאמין כי כל התורה הזאת הנתונה ע"י משה רבינו ע"ה שהיא כולה מפי הגבורה כלומר שהגיעה אליו כולה מאת ה' יתברך
I think this is quote clear, that ALL of the Torah we have comes from Hashem through Moshe. That is what he says.
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.
And I have a different interpretation of RYHC that isn't kefira. It's not shvache reasoning when it's Rav Moshe and nobody has offered a good alternative pshat.
RYHC has the full right to argue on RM.
He can do whatever he wants (just like the Rambam can say in one place that you can shave during the shloshim, or that it never says the words חרון אף except with regard to Avodah Zarah), but R' Moshe shows that he's wrong, and RYHC is not here to ask. I am fine with leaving the RYHC as shver, just like we do with Rishonim that seem to flatly contradict the Gemara all the time. Doesn't make it a valid shitta (similar argument here https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/i/102879527/but-the-rambam-said-it)
I'm curious what role R Moshe's teshuva plays in your thinking. If R Moshe hadn't ever addressed the issue, would you consider it any less unbelievable to think RYHC wrote that some pesukim were added later? Or if it turned out that e.g. R Shlomo Zalman Auerbach said that it's perfectly okay to believe it, then what? If I understand your views correctly, it's simply inconceivable to think that that could have occurred, while continuing to maintain belief in anything resembling Torah Judaism. And since you are convinced of the truth of the latter, by implication the former *must* be false. But it's a very curious epistemology to decide what someone in the 1100s did or didn't say about an event which did or didn't happen in the times of the neviim, based on anything someone said in the 20th century.
(Note, that I'm NOT questioning what the Halachic ramifications of believing it are, or even anything about R Moshe. I may be a blowhard, but I have enough sense not to say dumb things about R Moshe. My question pertains to YOUR beliefs.)
Well, I hadn't heard about the purported RYHC until I had also heard about R' Moshe, so כתובה ושוברו עמו. But as I said, there are plenty of places where the Rishonim write something תמוה, and we are content to leave it as תמוה, not say it is a valid shitta. This is how I view the alleged RYHC, with or without R' Moshe. It's shver. It makes no sense. And so it stands to reason that it's a forgery, or at the very least he didn't write it himself, but it was his son (as Shapiro mentions somebody who says this).
But even if we knew 100% that he wrote it, it still wouldn't make any sense and wouldn't have any validity at face value. We might say he was gripped by a רוח שטות when he said it, or was joking, or was a kofer at that point in his life, or simply made a serious error like R' Moshe says about the Binyan Yehoshua, or means something very deep that we can't understand. But it has no validity at face value.
* You raised a possibility from Rabbi Mordechai Breuer regarding the Ibn Ezra that might work for this also- if RYHC actually said it and meant it and wasn't a kofer, possibly he understood these lines were initially meant to be commentary from the Anshei Knesses Hagedolah and were accidentally confused with the text itself and then copied and disseminated too far before anybody noticed. Still seems pretty far fetched, but at least makes sense, they weren't deliberately changing Moshe Rabbeinu's book.
"You raised a possibility from Rabbi Mordechai Breuer regarding the Ibn Ezra that might work for this also- if RYHC actually said it and meant it and wasn't a kofer, possibly he understood these lines were initially meant to be commentary from the Anshei Knesses Hagedolah and were accidentally confused with the text itself and then copied and disseminated too far before anybody noticed. Still seems pretty far fetched, but at least makes sense, they weren't deliberately changing Moshe Rabbeinu's book."
I had meant to make that point earlier to you. I don't think anyone claims that RYHC claimed there was anything sinister involved. There was never an attempt to 'deliberately pass anything off.' And, crucially, no Mitzvos were added, nothing was deleted, and whoever added to it didn't think they were undermining Moshe Rabeinu or contradicting him in any way.
“And I have a different interpretation of RYHC that isn't kefira.”
What’s that?
Or as a rebbe would say: I'd rather have a shverre RYHC than a shvache happy.
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]
Ok, Papal Bull is good.
So is the poem. Facts.
It says nowhere that Rambam denies that Sheidim exist.
Really.
Yes, really.
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.
This is stupid.
No, actually. It is very accurate.
No. It actually didn't make too much sense at all.
Yes, it makes perfect sense.
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."
Forgot this one.
https://cross-currents.com/2013/07/23/is-heresy-horrible/
"As the controversy surrounding Rabbi Zev Farber’s remarks about the authorship of Chumash heats up, it might be a good idea to examine a few points that commenters to Rabbi Gordimer’s essay have raised.
......
"3) All of this talk about heresy will not make the questions go away. Whatever his unacceptable conclusions, Rabbi Farber struggled with issues and challenges posed by academic disciplines that are situated well outside of the perimeters of Torah thought. “Outing” his conclusions without addressing the questions is not going to accomplish much!"
"Yes it will. The Orthodox community has tens of thousands of people who do respect mesorah and authority. For them, the first order of business needs to be to draw lines beyond which one cannot go. Addressing the questions is important, but it is the second order of business, not the first.
However, the commenters who raised this issue do have a point. We have not done an adequate job on the second order of business. We do have some very good people who have excellent approaches, but we do not have enough of them. For the first time in many centuries, I believe, we do not have gedolei Yisrael who throw themselves into the intellectual struggles of the day. The circles of most rigorous Torah study have so completely eschewed all other areas, that they are not familiar with the questions, let alone in a position to provide answers. That burden has shifted to people who are not at the top of the Torah pyramid, but are solid yirei Shomayim. We do need to publicize more of their output. Before we do that, however, we need to draw clear lines between what can be part of an Orthodox community, and what cannot. When a fire breaks out, our first response has to be to put out the fire – not to fire-proof the rest of the village. Rabbi Gordimer’s first piece points unmistakably to both the fire and its source."
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.
Did you read his letter on astrology? You should before you postulate about it.
I did.
I think you are making a very important point as well. Anyone who reads it must think twice. I said it may be apologetics.
Well, I have no idea how you can fit your idea in there.
If you don't like I really can't blame you. It's very possibly incorrect as I said.
Main reason to say this because contradiction from other Rambams and Greek philosophy. No strong indication from this letter alone. His main concerns are Greek philosophy and problem with free will so it could be reasonable that he wasn't ignoring the Greek version of astrology which hasn't these issues...
The point I am trying show is an important one, and it is one that is lost on the academic who delve into gemara stduying.
When Tosfos quotes Rashi's explanation and then asks on it from various gemaras, and then gives a different explanation that fits better with the other gemaras, would we then learn the rest of the sugya saying that Rashi argues with those gemaras? Of course not! We would say that Rashi has his own way of explaining those gemaras, and Tosfos for whatever reason, rejects Rashi's answer to his questions. Tosfos feels that Rashi does not fit with those gemaras. Rashi himself would be able to provide an explanation. To us little people, we say that both Rashi and Tosfos fit with all of the gemaras, and it is up to us to explain how. In some sugyos we are able to do this, in other sugyas we are unable to explain it. Even when we can't explain it, we KNOW that Rashi does not argue on gemaras.
The academics fail to grasp this point entirely. They will say that Tosfos says Rashi argues on the gemara, and leave it at that. They will 'learn' the rest of the sugya assuming Rashi argues on that gemara. This is a setious misunderstanding of the process of the gemara and Rishonim asking from gemaras on each other.
Case in point, one of the academics (Slifkin or Shapiro, I don't remember which) says that the Rambam based his hashkafos on Greek philosophers. His source, is the Gra who says this. This is a serious misunderstanding. The Rambam would be the first to say that he DOES NOT base his Hashkafos on Greek philosophy. He feels that their philosophy and Torah true hashkafah overlap, but he does not base his ideas on Greek philosophy!
The point I'm trying to make is an important one, that the Rambam lays out in a letter the rules of what to do when your knowledge of truth conflicts with a gemara, and you very obviously did not read it.
I already mentioned that I did not read it....The Ranbam himself says that he CAN NOT argue on the gemara. How do YOU explain that?!?
100% I think what you said was very, very important, as was what Lou said. I just think the two of you were really agreeing.
Either way, I already spent WAY too much of my time typing out these responses, so that will be all for me for this blog post...
Not his hashkofos, rather his knowledge of TRUTH.
Same thing.
The Rambam quotes Torah sources for his hashkafos. He also quotes the philosophers, but it is clear that the Rambam fully believed that his sources were from the Torah and Chazal, not from Greek philosophers!
The GRA (and others) maintained that the Rambam was influenced by the works of the philosophers, and this caused him to twist the Torah sources to fit with the philosophers. Although the Rambam himself would disagree vehemently with the statement of the GRA, the mainstream opinion is not like the Rambam on this idea.
“but it is clear that the Rambam fully believed that his sources were from the Torah and Chazal, not from Greek philosophers!”
Sources for what?
Read the first few chapters of רמב"ם ספר המדע. He cites pesukim as his sources for the ideas he writes, not the Greek philosophers.
He says all sorts of things from Greek philosophy, and writes in the beginning of שמונה פרקים that he won’t always tell you because people would have a problem with it (or something similar)
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."
"No, it's not. it's pointing out what follows from *Sasoon's* viewpoint."- that's exactly what I said, that his judgement of what follows from Sasson's viewpoint is incorrect.
"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?"- It's obvious that one is just finishing off the Torah that was supposed to be finished at Moshe's death (I would say Moshe expected Yehoshua to finish it but not sure if that's necessary) and one is actually changing the Torah.
"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."- That's why I brought pre-printing presses examples as well. A braisa appended at the end of Avos is not a change, any more than having a Chumash with Targum and Rashi in it is a change. The Savoraim were at the time when the Talmud wasn't yet completed and widely dissmeninated. As I said, imagine the Rambam or Rashi changing the Mishnah or Gemara (not simply amending mistaken girsah) on their own accord. That's crazy.
"that's exactly what I said, that his judgement of what follows from Sasson's viewpoint is incorrect."
If that's all you were saying, I don't disagree. I barely know what Sasoon's approach even is. I thought you were claiming he advocates for it.
"It's obvious that one is just finishing off the Torah that was supposed to be finished at Moshe's death (I would say Moshe expected Yehoshua to finish it but not sure if that's necessary) and one is actually changing the Torah."
No it's not. They both involve additions of pesukim.
"A braisa appended at the end of Avos is not a change, any more than having a Chumash with Targum and Rashi in it is a change."
The targum and rashi are there as commentaries. That's why they tend to be on the same page, and rashi has divrei hamschil. If you had an example of them being added at the end of devarim as additional perakim, that would analogous to Perek vav of pirkei avos.
"No it's not. They both involve additions of pesukim."- Sorry, you're wrong. One is finishing off the Torah, one is changing it. I can't believe you can't see this difference.
" If you had an example of them being added at the end of devarim as additional perakim, that would analogous to Perek vav of pirkei avos."- Ok, the haftaros and Megilos are an example like that. Nobody argues this is a change to the text of the Chumash. If they inserted pesukim from Yeshaya into the text of Devarim, and this was widely accepted and became the standard Chumash Devarim, that would be a good example.
"I can't believe you can't see this difference."
I see the difference. And one is heresy according to R Mosher Feinstein, while one isn't. I get all that. But it doesn't address the question of why that must be so as *a logical matter.* Seriously, if you became convinced that e.g. Yeshayahu wrote the census numbers in parshas Bamidbar, you'd go eat a cheeseburger? That seems crazy to me.
" Seriously, if you became convinced that e.g. Yeshayahu wrote the census numbers in parshas Bamidbar, you'd go eat a cheeseburger? That seems crazy to me."-I think it's an absurd hypothetical, like I mention in the post. So it's hard for me to talk about hypotheticals like that in a serious way.
Talk about it the same way you talk about: "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."
Replace JEPD with my example. What would your final sentence say in that case?
" If you had an example of them being added at the end of devarim as additional perakim, that would analogous to Perek vav of pirkei avos."- Ok, the haftaros and Megilos are an example like that. "
They're not continuations of anything. That's why people tend to sometimes have a hard time finding them at all. Lots of bewildered page turning and all that "oh, they put it after bamidbar??'. But if someone asked where parshas beha'aloscha is located in the Artscroll chumash, you'd think he was nuts. Because it's part of the the chumash. It's in the only place it could be.
Why are haftaros not continuations? That's literally what they read in shul after the parsha? Another example- does anybody believe Tachanun and Ashrei and Uva l'Tzion is a modification to the text of Shemoneh Esrei, and would therefore be precedent to modify Shemoneh Esrei itself?
"Why are haftaros not continuations?"
Because no one thinks they're part of the parsha. Heck, plenty of shuls lein them from a printed nach. If they tried leining the parsha that way, they'd get heckled louder than if they tried skipping av ha'rachamim. (And also, R Dovid Feinstein's geshmake gematrios wouldn't work....)
A. In the generation of the רשב"ם there was חכמי צרפת and חכמי אשכנז. No one confused the two.
B. יהושע was specifically מצווה to write these פסוקים. How is that relevant to later נביאים or even יהושע himself?
C. Adding to any text of authority was just not done. Printing has nothing to do with it.
D. ראיותיך הן ראיות לסתור, דוק ותשכח
E. כפירה is כפירה
I'm not going to go do your homework for you. I provided my sources. Telling me ראיותיך הן ראיות לסתור, דוק ותשכח is useless to anything.
Indeed I was lazy. I didn't want to type. OK
פרקי אבות is not מסכת אבות. Nobody added anything to the mishna, only to the reading in shul. It has nothing to do with additions to a text of authority.
The גמרא was always more fluid than the משנה. A few savoraic additions (well known in the מסורה) did not impact anything.
This has nothing whatsever to do with the תורה, which was complete, binding and unchanging.
(And please don't try to compare this to חסרות ויתרות or similar questions. Equally irrelevant)
The theory that later neviim added to it doesn't make it any less binding than the fact that Yehoshua added the last 8 pesukim. The same way that the fluidity of the Gemara doesn't make it less binding. The claim under discussion isn't that any mitzvos were added to the torah. Those are the views of Tamar Ross types, not the (alleged) R Yehuda Ha'chasid.
I'll explain again, maybe this time I'll be more successful...
You said that the שיטה in the גמרא that יהושע wrote the last 8 פסוקים is a ראיה that later נביאים also added פסוקים.
I (and others) explained that יהושע was specifically מצווה to write these specific 8 פסוקים
there is no מקור in חז"ל that any other נביא or even יהושע himself, was מצווה to add any other פסוק or even one word.
Since חז"ל say that anyone who says that even משה רבינו added anything to the תורה is כפירה, tou need to bring a מקור that any נביא ever was allowed to add anything.
There is no such מקור in חז"ל (AFAIK), besides יהושע wrt to these 8 פסוקים.
So this is not a ראיה for BC but a ראיה against it.
The משנה was never considered to be קדושה במלותיה like תנ"ך. The content is indeed קדוש, but the words were those of רבותינו התנאים.
So anything about the משנה (or the גמרא) can't serve as a ראיה for BC.
You brought two examples of additions, which are completely irrelevant to BC, and the פרקי אבות one is also wrong as any sort of proof to actual additions the משנה
I'm not advocating biblical criticm. And you may well be right that saying various pesukim were added later is kefira. But if it's kfira, it's kfira because it *violates* something. By contrast, if someone adopts multiple authorship, and especially if they deny that mattan torah ever happened, that's not 'just' kfira because it goes against this or that ikar or because it's dvar Hashem baza. (And to be clear, I think those latter 2 are very very bad things.)
R Mordechai Breur made this point (or something to that effect) to Israel Knohl. If someone claims that that a few paragraphs of Shakespeare's work were added later, that's one thing. But it's fundamentally different thing than if the guy claims Shakespeare never existed, or was illiterate and plagiarized from some black lady.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/amelia-bassano-william-shakespeare/
“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?“
There is a very specific reason that opinion in the Gemara asserts Yehoshua finished the Torah. This would not apply to a prophet hundreds of years later. Why in heavens name (pun intended) didn’t G-d get the Torah right the first time around that He starts making tweaks on us?
Heretical? Perhaps debatable. Crazy? Certainly.
“No, it's not. it's pointing out what follows from *Sasoon's* viewpoint.“
Right. Except that he’s dead wrong. That doesn’t necessarily follow from his viewpoint.
Non-sequitur. My point was that that Shapiro isn't advocating it.
(The first 3 blatt) [Parts of the first 3 amudim, that is 6&1/2 lines on the first, the entire second, & 12&1/2 lines of the third] of kiddushin were written by the savvoraim.
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.
Well there's a difference between criticizing something, and calling them all a bunch of bird brains. But hey, he did just that, so I guess you're right.
Yep. Happy can't understand group self criticims because chareidim never accept they have any faults.
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.
Well, not zero. But it's derech agav by way of the other principles.
The fact that the Magen Avraham quotes a sefer shouldn't make a difference, Rav Moshe says over there, ok, that sefer made a serious mistake. If it wasn't forgery then Rav Moshe would be forced to say the Sefer Chassidim made a serious error as well (not the first time he would say that about Rishonim, I think) or reinterpret it like Rav Menashe Klein does.
Rav Moshe quotes a Gemara that Neviim couldn't even change מנצפך that doesn't infringe on any mitzvos. In the footnote I bring a certain Rabbi Bonfils who says basically what you are saying, I explain why I think it doesn't make sense.
“If it wasn't forgery then Rav Moshe would be forced to say the Sefer Chassidim made a serious error as well (not the first time he would say that about Rishonim, I think)”
Hey, he’s entitled to argue, but obviously they don’t think it’s an error, so we’d have to see how מוכח his arguments are. We are talking about some pretty big people so we wouldn’t write them off so easily.
It's מוכח to me, and I'm prepared to argue it! 😊. As far as I'm concerned, the fact that the Torah wasn't changed by lesser prophets is much more pashut to me than that Rabbi Yehudah Hachasid was right about something (if he said it and meant it).
I'm relinking
http://forum.otzar.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=13913&sid=1a8a74093708f1c3ce51004bedc4037f#p130118
Thanks, that is a good discussion over there
Thanks. This is bringing back all sorts of memories....
יותר מסתבר ששלטו ידי זרים בספר מסורת משה, ואם בדורו של רבינו משה נחמני היו עמי ארצות בודאי לא פסו מן הארץ גם בדורו של רבינו משה פינשטיין, וכבר פקפקו רבים באיזה תשובות שנכתבו בשמו, וא"כ בודאי אותם טעותים שנמסרו בשמו כאילו יש בדברי אדונינו הרמב"ן טעותים מזוייפים, הם עצמם מזוייפים. ופשוט.
חזור למעלה
חכם באשי
הודעות: 9978
הצטרף: ה' מאי 06, 2010 2:05 am
Re: האם שלטו ידי זרים בפירושי הראשונים על התורה?
הודעהעל ידי חכם באשי » ה' יוני 20, 2013 1:07 pm
כבר ר' מנשה קליין טען, שהתשובה בה רמ"פ קובע שפירוש ריה"ח זוייף - היא עצמה מזוייפת!
“In the footnote I bring a certain Rabbi Bonfils”
Which footnote? Do you mean Rabbi Elem in footnote 3?
yes
He’s saying they did it on their own accord, or at least without a direct ציווי from G-d.
That isn’t the same as a viewpoint which understands that a prophet, say Dovid, changed something with a direct ציווי from G-d.
I think Dovid would have to convince everybody else that Hashem commanded him to make changes to the Torah of Moshe (who I think everybody who follows the Torah understands is the אדון הנביאים). It seems very unreasonable to me that people who follow the Torah would just accept this. The Neviim were supposed to encourage people to keep the Torah, not change it. I think that's clear from the Torah itself as well as everywhere in the Neviim.
That may be true. But that doesn’t make it heretical to say so.
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!