“For example [Meiri] describes the idolatrous nations, those not ‘restricted by the ways of religion’ as violent people ‘who are possessed of no religion in the world and do not yield to fear of a Divinity and, instead, burn incense to the heavenly bodies and worship idols, paying no head to sin.”[6] Elsewhere he states, concerning the idolaters of old: ‘They were not restricted to the ways of religion, every sin and everything repulsive was fit in their eyes[7].’”
Just to give an example here’s what the Meiri says in the relevant paragraph Shapiro’s quoting from in the latter:
As for the gentiles and Jewish sheperds of small domesticated animals - whose flocks regularly engage in theft and [the sheperds of which] are engaged in it up to the point that they cast the yoke of Torah off themselves (except it’s not for the sake of the casting off [itself] but rather for monetary gain) - in any place where damage comes from them were are not commanded to strive to save them. Likewise with the gentiles you must analyze it based on what we’ve previously explained. About what gentile did they say this? One must say it was said regarding the idolaters who were not restricted in the ways of religion and, quite to the contrary [of being so disciplined], every sin and abomination was amazing in their eyes. The philosopher (Aristotle) said, “kill he who has no religion.” Anyhow, anyone who worships God even if he is not part of the religion is not included in this rule, God forbid. You already know well how with regards to a resident stranger (that is, one who takes the seven laws upon himself) that we are commanded to sustain him.
Literally no part of this paragraph is about the theological issue of idolatry or why it’s bad. (It might be relevant to who certain halachos apply to but that’s not the topic.)
Also the Hertz Chumash where Shapiro quotes refers to his comments on Deut 4:19 where he writes, “God had suffered [sic] the heathens to worship the sun, moon, and stars as a stepping-stone to a higher stage of religious belief. That worship of the heathen nations thus forms part of God’s guidance of humanity. But as for the Israelites, God had given them first-hand knowledge of Him through the medium of Revelation. It is for this reason that idolatry was for them [sic] an unpardonable offence; and everything that might seduce that from that Divine Revelation was to be ruthlessly destroyed. Hence the amazing tolerance shown by Judaism of all ages towards the followers of other cults, so long as these were not stepped in immorality and crime [sic]. Thus, the sacrificial offering of heathens to be a glorification of God (see on Mal. I, 11, pg. 103). Equally striking is the attitude of the Rabbis toward the heathen world. War had been declared against Canaanites not because of matters of dogma or ritual but because of the savage cruelty and foul licentiousness of their lives and cult. But the Rabbis never regarded the heathens of their own day as on the same moral level as the Canaanites. Their contemporary heathens in the Roman and Persian empires obeyed the laws of conduct which the Rabbis deemed vital to the existence of human society, the so-called ‘seven commandments given to the children of Noah’ (see pg. 303 on v. 7) They wisely held that in their religious life these heathens merely followed the traditional worship which they had inherited from their fathers before them (מנהג אבותיהן בידיהן), and they could not therefore be held responsible for failure to reach a true notion of the Unity of God, בני נח לא נזהרו על השיתוף. Such followers of other faiths – they taught – were judged by God purely by their moral life. חסידי אומות העולם יש להם חלק לעולם הבא. “The righteous of all nations have a share in the world to come,’ and are heirs of immorality, alongside the righteous in Israel. A later midrash proclaimed: ‘I call heaven and earth to witness that, whether it be Jew or heathen, mean or woman, freeman or bondman – only according to their acts does the Divine spirit rest upon them.’ And in the darkest days of the Middle Ages, Solomon Ibn Gabirol, the great philosopher and Synagogue hymn-writer sang:
‘Thou art the Lord,
And all beings are Thy servants, Thy domain;
And through those who serve idols vain
Thine honour is not detracted from,
For they all aim to Thee to come.’
This is probably the earliest enunciation of religious tolerance in Western Europe.” In other words, God suffers avodah zara by non-Jews now so they can later advance to monotheism. Shapiro seems to want more than that though.
“The clearest support for Sacks' position is provided by R. Netanel ben al-Fayyumi (twelfth century), who maintains that "God sent different prophets to the various nations of the world with legislations suited to the particular temperament of each individual nation." Although Sacks is motivated by a post-modern vision, the medieval R. Netanel also claimed that God's truth was not encompassed by Judaism alone. According to R. Netanel, various religions are to be viewed by their adherents, and correctly so, as sanctified.”
I will note that R. Netanel goes to some lengths to try to demonstrate how the Quran is compatible with the Torah and even urges the Jews to keep the Torah. Sacks is doing no such thing (seemingly). I strongly believe, even if we take Netanel Al-Fayyumi at his word and assume he meant what he said, that he’d only say what he said if he thought the Gentile religion didn’t contradict Judaism (which, for instance, the Trinitarian doctrine most definitely does).
"is beyond the purview of this essay to debunk this current wildly popular idea that in non-halachic matters every Tom, Dick, or Harry can unilaterally choose to buck the entire Jewish mainstream in favor of a minority opinion he likes better; we hope to return to it at a later date."
Be careful where you go with that, because numerous Rishonim and Acharonim are quite comfortable bucking the mainstream when it comes to explaining pesukim - the radak frequently ignores the gemorroh. As for the Ibn Ezra, all we can say is the tochachah megulah and some dodgy talmid inserted the ahavah nisteres part of the quote.....
Yes, its obvious. Chareidim have declared that in non-halachik matters, only they can decide the 'entire Jewish mainstream' thereby declaring every other hashkofo heretical.
Because that is all you can do when a rishon says something you find uncomfortable. Just define yourself as 'the entire' hence the 'entire Jewish mainstream' as being your hashkofo, and hence anybody that holds like that rishon is a heretic.
Also the Etz Yosef on the Midrash in Shemos Rabbah he quotes says
על עבודת כו"ם אלא לכם. פי' על דקדוקי עכו"ם. ולזה מייתי לא תעשו לכם שדרשוהו על הנמכר לעקר. וכן מ"ש לא נתתי משפט אלא לכם ר"ל דקדוקי משפט חקירות ודרישות. דאל"כ הלא הם מז' מצות בני נח:
Basically the Etz Yosef explains that the thing Shapiro makes a big deal about only applies to the particularities of idolatry and he cites as a proof the next example “I have given judgement to none but you” where it must mean the specifics of judgement because otherwise there could be no Noahide laws. This of course destroys Shapiro’s interpretation.
To be fair to Shapiro with the Rashbam if you translate it in a very specific way you can read it as he does. Here’s how I’d translate it normally followed by how I think he’s translating it:
אשר חלק - להאיר. ולפי עיקר הפשט: אשר הניח אותם לכל העמים לעובדם, כי אינו חושש בהם, אבל - אתכם לקח ה' ויוציא אתכם להיות לו לעם נחלה - ולעבדו והוא יהיה לכם לאלהים.
My normal translation: Who apportioned – to give light. According to the plainmost meaning: who left them for the nations to worship, because he does not worry about them [the non-Jews], but you God chose to be His people and to worship him and that he should be your God. (Basically how Rational Traditionalist suggests reading it.)
Shapiro’s translation: Who apportioned – to give light. According to the plainmost meaning: who left them for the nations to worship, because he does not care about [competition from the celestial beings the Gentiles worship] but you God chose to be his people and to worship him and that he would be your God.
[2] It is important to remind ourselves that we are not here to engage on the actual ideas propagated in the book. We are taking for granted that most readers instinctively recognize Sacks’ assertions to be intellectually ridiculous and religiously beyond the pale. Our goal here is simply to see what we can learn about methodology and tactics by analyzing the discussion.
The intellectually ridiculous part here is kind of unfair. Religious pluralism is an actually serious view in philosophy. As for the presumed question of religious doctrinal contradictions here’s a source on that:
“How do pluralists deal with conflicting claims? John Hick maintains that, despite conflicting truth claims, Christians, Muslims and Buddhists are all “in touch” with and responding appropriately to the religious ultimate – which he calls “the Real.” The Real transcends conceptions of religious ultimacy in the religions such as God the Holy Trinity, or Allah, or nirvana. The latter are merely penultimate symbols through which Christians, Muslims and Buddhists relate to the ultimate reality – the Real. Hick argues that teachings about the Trinity or Allah or nirvana cannot be accepted as they are taught within the respective religions but must be reinterpreted in mythological terms. Doctrinal disagreements thus pertain to penultimate matters and, according to Hick, are not significant since they do not affect ‘the transformation from self-centeredness to Reality-centeredness.’” (Moreland, Meister & Sweis, Debating Christian Theism,503)
"As a general rule, source fudging tends to come in one of two forms. There are those where the disingenuousness becomes apparent by looking up the quote, analyzing its real meaning in context, and finding the subtle misapplication based on the underlying rationale of the subject matter. And then there are those where you just have to look it up"
You forgot the option, much beloved by the yeshivah world, of quoting a source that simply does not exist. You know, the instant response, 'Tosfos asks that kasho in makkos" or "The taz is meikel'. Wnen neither tosfos or the taz exist.
Why thank you. That's from the finest compliments I've ever received!
Some additional notes on Shapiro’s article
“For example [Meiri] describes the idolatrous nations, those not ‘restricted by the ways of religion’ as violent people ‘who are possessed of no religion in the world and do not yield to fear of a Divinity and, instead, burn incense to the heavenly bodies and worship idols, paying no head to sin.”[6] Elsewhere he states, concerning the idolaters of old: ‘They were not restricted to the ways of religion, every sin and everything repulsive was fit in their eyes[7].’”
Just looked up these citations and wow.
Here’s page 39: https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=40778&st=&pgnum=48&hilite=
Here’s page 59: https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=40778&st=&pgnum=68&hilite=
Just to give an example here’s what the Meiri says in the relevant paragraph Shapiro’s quoting from in the latter:
As for the gentiles and Jewish sheperds of small domesticated animals - whose flocks regularly engage in theft and [the sheperds of which] are engaged in it up to the point that they cast the yoke of Torah off themselves (except it’s not for the sake of the casting off [itself] but rather for monetary gain) - in any place where damage comes from them were are not commanded to strive to save them. Likewise with the gentiles you must analyze it based on what we’ve previously explained. About what gentile did they say this? One must say it was said regarding the idolaters who were not restricted in the ways of religion and, quite to the contrary [of being so disciplined], every sin and abomination was amazing in their eyes. The philosopher (Aristotle) said, “kill he who has no religion.” Anyhow, anyone who worships God even if he is not part of the religion is not included in this rule, God forbid. You already know well how with regards to a resident stranger (that is, one who takes the seven laws upon himself) that we are commanded to sustain him.
Literally no part of this paragraph is about the theological issue of idolatry or why it’s bad. (It might be relevant to who certain halachos apply to but that’s not the topic.)
Also the Hertz Chumash where Shapiro quotes refers to his comments on Deut 4:19 where he writes, “God had suffered [sic] the heathens to worship the sun, moon, and stars as a stepping-stone to a higher stage of religious belief. That worship of the heathen nations thus forms part of God’s guidance of humanity. But as for the Israelites, God had given them first-hand knowledge of Him through the medium of Revelation. It is for this reason that idolatry was for them [sic] an unpardonable offence; and everything that might seduce that from that Divine Revelation was to be ruthlessly destroyed. Hence the amazing tolerance shown by Judaism of all ages towards the followers of other cults, so long as these were not stepped in immorality and crime [sic]. Thus, the sacrificial offering of heathens to be a glorification of God (see on Mal. I, 11, pg. 103). Equally striking is the attitude of the Rabbis toward the heathen world. War had been declared against Canaanites not because of matters of dogma or ritual but because of the savage cruelty and foul licentiousness of their lives and cult. But the Rabbis never regarded the heathens of their own day as on the same moral level as the Canaanites. Their contemporary heathens in the Roman and Persian empires obeyed the laws of conduct which the Rabbis deemed vital to the existence of human society, the so-called ‘seven commandments given to the children of Noah’ (see pg. 303 on v. 7) They wisely held that in their religious life these heathens merely followed the traditional worship which they had inherited from their fathers before them (מנהג אבותיהן בידיהן), and they could not therefore be held responsible for failure to reach a true notion of the Unity of God, בני נח לא נזהרו על השיתוף. Such followers of other faiths – they taught – were judged by God purely by their moral life. חסידי אומות העולם יש להם חלק לעולם הבא. “The righteous of all nations have a share in the world to come,’ and are heirs of immorality, alongside the righteous in Israel. A later midrash proclaimed: ‘I call heaven and earth to witness that, whether it be Jew or heathen, mean or woman, freeman or bondman – only according to their acts does the Divine spirit rest upon them.’ And in the darkest days of the Middle Ages, Solomon Ibn Gabirol, the great philosopher and Synagogue hymn-writer sang:
‘Thou art the Lord,
And all beings are Thy servants, Thy domain;
And through those who serve idols vain
Thine honour is not detracted from,
For they all aim to Thee to come.’
This is probably the earliest enunciation of religious tolerance in Western Europe.” In other words, God suffers avodah zara by non-Jews now so they can later advance to monotheism. Shapiro seems to want more than that though.
“The clearest support for Sacks' position is provided by R. Netanel ben al-Fayyumi (twelfth century), who maintains that "God sent different prophets to the various nations of the world with legislations suited to the particular temperament of each individual nation." Although Sacks is motivated by a post-modern vision, the medieval R. Netanel also claimed that God's truth was not encompassed by Judaism alone. According to R. Netanel, various religions are to be viewed by their adherents, and correctly so, as sanctified.”
I will note that R. Netanel goes to some lengths to try to demonstrate how the Quran is compatible with the Torah and even urges the Jews to keep the Torah. Sacks is doing no such thing (seemingly). I strongly believe, even if we take Netanel Al-Fayyumi at his word and assume he meant what he said, that he’d only say what he said if he thought the Gentile religion didn’t contradict Judaism (which, for instance, the Trinitarian doctrine most definitely does).
"is beyond the purview of this essay to debunk this current wildly popular idea that in non-halachic matters every Tom, Dick, or Harry can unilaterally choose to buck the entire Jewish mainstream in favor of a minority opinion he likes better; we hope to return to it at a later date."
Be careful where you go with that, because numerous Rishonim and Acharonim are quite comfortable bucking the mainstream when it comes to explaining pesukim - the radak frequently ignores the gemorroh. As for the Ibn Ezra, all we can say is the tochachah megulah and some dodgy talmid inserted the ahavah nisteres part of the quote.....
Yes, its obvious. Chareidim have declared that in non-halachik matters, only they can decide the 'entire Jewish mainstream' thereby declaring every other hashkofo heretical.
Because that is all you can do when a rishon says something you find uncomfortable. Just define yourself as 'the entire' hence the 'entire Jewish mainstream' as being your hashkofo, and hence anybody that holds like that rishon is a heretic.
You remind me of Rabbi Aharon Feldman.
Also the Etz Yosef on the Midrash in Shemos Rabbah he quotes says
על עבודת כו"ם אלא לכם. פי' על דקדוקי עכו"ם. ולזה מייתי לא תעשו לכם שדרשוהו על הנמכר לעקר. וכן מ"ש לא נתתי משפט אלא לכם ר"ל דקדוקי משפט חקירות ודרישות. דאל"כ הלא הם מז' מצות בני נח:
Basically the Etz Yosef explains that the thing Shapiro makes a big deal about only applies to the particularities of idolatry and he cites as a proof the next example “I have given judgement to none but you” where it must mean the specifics of judgement because otherwise there could be no Noahide laws. This of course destroys Shapiro’s interpretation.
To be fair to Shapiro with the Rashbam if you translate it in a very specific way you can read it as he does. Here’s how I’d translate it normally followed by how I think he’s translating it:
אשר חלק - להאיר. ולפי עיקר הפשט: אשר הניח אותם לכל העמים לעובדם, כי אינו חושש בהם, אבל - אתכם לקח ה' ויוציא אתכם להיות לו לעם נחלה - ולעבדו והוא יהיה לכם לאלהים.
My normal translation: Who apportioned – to give light. According to the plainmost meaning: who left them for the nations to worship, because he does not worry about them [the non-Jews], but you God chose to be His people and to worship him and that he should be your God. (Basically how Rational Traditionalist suggests reading it.)
Shapiro’s translation: Who apportioned – to give light. According to the plainmost meaning: who left them for the nations to worship, because he does not care about [competition from the celestial beings the Gentiles worship] but you God chose to be his people and to worship him and that he would be your God.
[2] It is important to remind ourselves that we are not here to engage on the actual ideas propagated in the book. We are taking for granted that most readers instinctively recognize Sacks’ assertions to be intellectually ridiculous and religiously beyond the pale. Our goal here is simply to see what we can learn about methodology and tactics by analyzing the discussion.
The intellectually ridiculous part here is kind of unfair. Religious pluralism is an actually serious view in philosophy. As for the presumed question of religious doctrinal contradictions here’s a source on that:
“How do pluralists deal with conflicting claims? John Hick maintains that, despite conflicting truth claims, Christians, Muslims and Buddhists are all “in touch” with and responding appropriately to the religious ultimate – which he calls “the Real.” The Real transcends conceptions of religious ultimacy in the religions such as God the Holy Trinity, or Allah, or nirvana. The latter are merely penultimate symbols through which Christians, Muslims and Buddhists relate to the ultimate reality – the Real. Hick argues that teachings about the Trinity or Allah or nirvana cannot be accepted as they are taught within the respective religions but must be reinterpreted in mythological terms. Doctrinal disagreements thus pertain to penultimate matters and, according to Hick, are not significant since they do not affect ‘the transformation from self-centeredness to Reality-centeredness.’” (Moreland, Meister & Sweis, Debating Christian Theism,503)
Mitzrayim was a כור הברזל for Klal Yisroel. They learned invaluable lessons from the wickedness of the Mitzrim and their punishment.
Ergo, the Mitzrim were part of G-d's plan for the world and the Jews.
So G-d spoke to the Mitzrim through their idol, whatever that was.
But they still got punished, and we celebrate those punishments.
How does that fit with the theology/logic of Sacks?
"As a general rule, source fudging tends to come in one of two forms. There are those where the disingenuousness becomes apparent by looking up the quote, analyzing its real meaning in context, and finding the subtle misapplication based on the underlying rationale of the subject matter. And then there are those where you just have to look it up"
You forgot the option, much beloved by the yeshivah world, of quoting a source that simply does not exist. You know, the instant response, 'Tosfos asks that kasho in makkos" or "The taz is meikel'. Wnen neither tosfos or the taz exist.
Nice article, covered a lot of points. I specifically liked the off topic footnote of the nature of a ban!
Nailed it!