The Art of the Rebuttal, Part 1

Lessons learned from fact-checking Marc Shapiro’s “Final Response”

Introduction

If you’re still following the several year long back and forth between Dr. Marc Shapiro and R. Herschel Grossman, give yourself a medal. And chess by mail may be your thing.

Even if you’re not from that select group there are still important lessons to be gleaned from the discussion – not so much from the subject matter, much of which is both technical and peripheral – but more about technique, which can be useful in training ourselves to spot baloney (or to use it, depending on your persuasion) throughout the literature. To that end we present here a user-friendly guide to some notable takeaways, which we hope will be readable even to the novice.

SECTION 1: A PROVISIONAL STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS

Dr. Shapiro, who is best known for his revisionist scholarship of Judaism’s intellectual history, is perhaps even more remarkable for his prodigious talents as a rebuttalist. Rarely does a critique of his work go by without a vigorous rejoinder from the professor, which invariably leaves the reader not only convinced of the unimpeachable nature of Shapiro’s work, but often wondering about his interlocutor’s intellectual capabilities as well. (One notable exception is our essay “On Knowing How to Learn, Part II”, which to date has not been addressed by Dr. Shapiro).

This is exactly what happened when R. Herschel Grossman took on the professor’s book “The Limits of Orthodox Theology”, which claims to demonstrate that the Rambam’s 13 principles of faith have never enjoyed universal acceptance amongst religious authorities. More than a critique of the thesis, Grossman’s article focused on errors of reasoning and misuse of sources that undermine the credibility of the author’s conclusions. As is to be expected, Shapiro kicked back – hard. In a series of four blog posts he defended his original arguments, called Grossman out for alleged slander, and inundated his readers with a mountain of additional sources that supported his views.

But then Grossman came back for more. Rather than belabor the original points, in his second article Grossman chose to critique the response itself – pointing out underhanded debating tactics that the professor employed, as well as upward of two dozen misrepresentations in his newly cited sources.

Dr. Shapiro completely ignored this second article for six months, but after we allowed Grossman to link up the debate here the professor finally issued a rejoinder, which he rather presumptuously chose to title “Final Response”. That response, and the methodological lessons it teaches, is the subject of our study.

The Final Response

The first thing we note upon reading the Final Response is that Dr. Shapiro is very, very, good at this. He manages to maintain the perfect tone of above-the-fray disinterested academic together with wounded persecuted innocent, all while totally lambasting his opponent. He breezes through the essay, insisting on having been misunderstood here and ridiculing a poor word choice there; the final result is a masterpiece of authoritative contempt. The casual reader is doubtless left feeling a mixture of pity, scorn, and indignation toward R. Grossman, who – in Shapiro’s words – “doesn’t have a clue what’s going on here”.

What’s missing

To be sure, the professor doesn’t respond to every one of Grossman’s points – as he says it, he merely “feels the need to make a few comments” and then “leave this matter and let the readers decide which side is more compelling”. We’re left wondering what his criteria are for which comments “need” to be made, and which are left for the readers. Why, for example, did he “need” to justify his understanding of Rabbi Chaim Sofer, but felt no “need” to explain similarly about his misquoting of a Maggid Mishna, misrepresentation of R’ Shimshon Pinkus, complete mutilation of Abarbanel’s position on the ikkarim, incorrect citation of a source for Mishna Berura, dishonest splicing of the words of his own teacher Isadore Tversky, breathtakingly superficial approach to ‘tzelem Elokim’, amongst many other critiques that he simply does not acknowledge? These are not minor nitpicks, but some seriously troubling scholarly indiscretions (the full list will be documented and elucidated as we make our way through this series), but I suppose his readers are much more concerned about R’ Chaim Sofer, R’ Pesach Finfer, and R’ Avraham Hochman.

So there’s our first tip from the master of deflection: just skip the hard ones. After all, we can let the readers decide.¹ Shapiro applies this intellectually robust approach to, by my count, 14 out of Grossman’s 28 secondary critiques.²

The “few comments” that Shapiro “felt the need to make”

Our more immediate concern, however, is the 14 critiques that Shapiro does indeed address. The majority of the comments are simply claims of having been misunderstood, or references to look at “here” and you’ll see that I’m right.

Working in the professor’s favor, of course, is that exactly nobody is following the intricate details of a prolonged ping pong match over the nuances implied by a collection of cherry-picked obscure sources, so it really just comes down to who plays the snide dismissive game better – which Shapiro clearly does, hands down. But it may be worthwhile to actually take a look at all these claims, and follow them through from the beginning.

Never fear, we’ve done the work for you. Here we will briefly summarize our findings, below we will provide several demonstrative examples, and in future posts we will provide a comprehensive list of all the responses.

In several instances – four by my count – Shapiro is essentially correct in his responses; Grossman misread a source, or misspoke in making a point. The professor milks these for all they’re worth – holding them up as “really comical”, “bizarre”, wondering ponderously if any editor actually read this before publication, and so forth. Much of the theatrics are over the top, but give the man his due; Shapiro is fully in the rights to capitalize on his opponent’s missteps to score some points.

The other 10 instances are not nearly as pretty. In the majority of them he simply lies, relying on the absurd complexity of the multistep debate to hide his lack of standing. In several others – perhaps most instructive for our purposes – he manages to pretend the criticism was an inappropriate attack, when in reality he is either reworking his original statement or ignoring the actual point under discussion.

In all, of the 28 points Grossman makes, Shapiro:

• Correctly responds to 4,

• Ignores 14,

• Obfuscates his way through 7, and

• Reengineers 3.

SECTION 2: PRELIMINARY EXAMPLES

The 4 instances where Shapiro is correct will be catalogued and examined in a later installment. For today we will provide one example for each of the latter three categories. Later this week we will present a more comprehensive list of all the responses and their respective categories. The purpose of this essay series is to discuss technique, and as such it is meant to be enjoyed even by those who are not particularly well versed in the subject matter. In that vein we will try to present the necessary background for each example, which may take a bit of time, but hopefully will not be overly cumbersome.

Category B: Ignores

An example of a critique that Shapiro apparently didn’t “feel the need” to comment on is when Grossman called him out for an attempted weasel regarding the matter of Abarbanel.³

In his book, Shapiro quotes Abarbanel as saying that the Rambam’s pirush hamishnayis (where the Yud Gimmel Ikkarim are spelled out) was written for beginners, and the Moreh was for more advanced scholars. The professor therefore concludes:

In Abarbanel’s mind, only limited attention should be paid to Maimonide’s early formulation of dogma, and it would certainly be improper to make conclusions about his theological views on the basis of a text designed for beginners.

Grossman’s original article pointed out the flagrant distortion in this statement: Abarbanel says nothing to undermine the importance of the ikkarim; to the contrary he devotes the very sefer in which he made that comment (Rosh Amanah) to resolving apparent questions on the ikarim and concludes,

It is clear… that the thirteen principles which [Rambam] articulated are indeed principles according to precise wisdom.

Shapiro responded in classic fashion. Noting that Grossman had prefaced his citation by saying that Shapiro quotes Abarbanel as part of his “attempt to list various authorities that take issue with Maimonides”, Shapiro responds by saying that he actually quoted Abarbanel as part of a different discussion.⁴

In his second article, Grossman basically says, ok point taken. Now back to the subject – please explain why you would ascribe to Abarbanel a view that “only limited attention should be paid”, and that “it would be improper to make conclusions about Maimonide’s theological views”, when Abarbanel never implies any such thing and devotes that entire sefer to paying much attention and making conclusions about Maimonides theological views from the ikkarim.

Shapiro’s Final Response to this question: crickets. I guess he knows his readership to be the type who finds this sort of thing ‘compelling’.

Category C: Obfuscates

As we read through the Final Response, we come across an interesting passage regarding a statement of someone by the name of R. Pesach Finfer.⁵ Shapiro had quoted a line from him which Grossman hadn’t understood, so Shapiro explains that it means something about “tikkun sofrim being taken literally”. At the end of the paragraph, Shapiro mentions that

“Following the sentence I quoted from Finfer, he refers in parentheses to Radvaz’s comment which offers a different (emphases Shapiro’s) perspective that tikkun sofrim is a halacha l’Moshe mi-Sinai”.

Unless you are a particularly fastidious cross-reference enthusiast suffering from an overabundance of leisure time, it’s unlikely that you’ll have any idea what just took place. So, at risk of revealing myself to be just such a fellow, I’ll tell you.

When Dr. Shapiro says “tikkun sofrim being taken literally”, he means the idea that later scribes amended the Torah on their own, making unilateral textual changes to the version that was given to Moshe. He ascribes this view to Rabbi Finfer on the basis of the following sentence:

ראוי הי‘ עזרא שתנתן התורה על ידו . . . והוא ונחמי‘ עשו תיקון סופרים וכינויי סופרים.

Ezra and Nechemia did ‘tikkun sofrim’.

Ok, great. But what does tikkun sofrim mean? Grossman makes an observation: Shapiro stopped the quote four words short. Immediately following those words, R. Finfer writes: "(ועי' רדב"ז ח"ג תקצ"ד)" .

So let’s see the Radvaz.

“And the truth is that all these examples [of Tikkun Sofrim, Kri V’Ktiv, Ittur Sofrim] are Halacha L’Moshe MiSinai, but still, the Scribes were very studious and precise, and deducted how it is appropriate for each word to be read, and written, even if they didn’t have the tradition from Sinai. Hence, everywhere that you find the term ‘Mikra Sofrim’ or ‘Tikkun Sofrim’ or ‘Ittur Sofrim’, it should not enter your mind, G-d forbid, that the word or letter was missing and the Scribes amended it, for if you understand it that way, you give room for our antagonists to make that claim, as they consistently do. Rather, the main idea is this: everything was Halacha L’Moshe MiSinai that it should be this way, and still, the Scribes comprehend that it should be this way, precisely the way they write it, even without being told the Halacha L’Moshe MiSinai.”

Being that R. Finfer references that Radvaz, he quite obviously does not mean that Ezra made tikkun sofrim on his own, in Dr. Shapiro’s sense; Grossman quite justifiably pointed out the oversight. And this is what Shapiro is responding to.

So let’s take another look at his response.

“Following the sentence I quoted from Finfer, he refers in parentheses to Radvaz’s comment which offers a different (emphases Shapiro’s) perspective that tikkun sofrim is a halacha l’Moshe mi-Sinai”.

Really. Now, I don’t have all that much experience in reading Finfer (to be perfectly honest, I’d never heard of him before this discussion), but assuming that he regularly expresses himself in the same manner as every other coherent writer in any language, Shapiro’s gratuitous post-hoc reading is idiotic. One does not generally interrupt oneself midsentence to reference a Rishon who rejects what he is saying with the terms ‘G-d forbid’ and ‘antagonist’s claim’, without in any way acknowledging nor addressing himself to this hiccup⁶. Nor is there any objective indication that R. Finfer’s purpose is anything other than to point us to a source that fleshes out a concept that he briefly mentioned.

But, having conveniently forgotten to mention what the Radvaz said – or even that the Radvaz was not some throwaway afterthought, but rather the actual critique – Shapiro can breezily mention that Finfer also chooses to let you know about a ‘different perspective’ that tikkun sofrim was halacha l’Moshe mi-Sinai, oh and pass the salt please.

While we’re taking rebuttal tips, take note also of how Shapiro paraphrases Radvaz: “that tikkun sofrim is a halacha l’Moshe mi-Sinai”. Without having seen the Radvaz’s actual words you would’ve taken that as exclusively halacha l’Moshe mi-Sinai, as opposed to sofrim amending through reason and research, wouldn’t you? And that would give the impression that his approach is incompatible with R. Finfer’s, eh? Truly masterful.

Category D: Reengineers (Or: “Dreis ah kup”)

From the Final Response: “P. 162: ‘In his [Shapiro’s] view the tenets of belief are Rambam’s innovations and are therefore disputable’. The word ‘innovation’ implies that the Rambam invented the doctrines he includes in his principles. I never said such a thing.” My my, Grossman blew it again.

What we have here is another wonderful diversionary tactic. Maybe there’s some technical truth to what he says here (though I’m not quite sure what it is), but the curt rejoinder serves no purpose other than to present a false impression that Grossman just misses the boat on Shapiro’s position. In reality that sentence is essentially correct on all points. Shapiro does indeed believe that the principles are disputable – that’s his entire thesis. And he does believe – as Grossman cites in the previous sentence to the one plucked out by Shapiro – that there were numerous scholars who thought the actual doctrines included in the principles to be “wrong, pure and simple”.

So yes, perhaps he never said it was the Rambam who made them up. Maybe somebody else made them up and Rambam borrowed them. But at the end of the day Shapiro’s thesis maintains that, at least according to a huge bulk of scholars, the Rambam’s doctrines are not only unsourced, they are in fact incorrect.

Shapiro is perfectly entitled to offer pedantic corrections to representations of his position (though it would be nice if he’d actually explain what the mistake was here, instead of just saying nuh uh). The genius lies not in the nitpicks themselves, but in the pretense that they serve as relevant additions to a Final Response and undermine fundamental critiques.

Parting Thoughts (for now)

Dr. Shapiro is an enormously influential figure in the world of academic Judaic studies. As we’ve previously demonstrated in our post “On Knowing How to Learn II”, much of his authority comes more from his ability to fudge than to learn. It’s important to constantly remind ourselves of this though. It’s almost impossible to read through a piece like the Final Response and not walk away impressed - until you look very, very closely. The examples demonstrated here, and the ones we will be discussing in the upcoming posts, should serve to remind us that no matter how many people fawn over his scholarship, nothing, absolutely nothing, should be taken for granted.

To be continued.

1. The lofty sounding “let the reader decide which side is more compelling” is itself a deliciously sly borrowed usage. When an argument is over two competing logical constructs, after both sides have laid out their respective case it is reasonable to step back and let the readers decide which case is better. But when one’s citations are demonstrated to be factually inaccurate, what exactly is supposed to be compelling about them? He can either demonstrate that it is not so (which Shapiro is quite eager to do when he believes he can), or he can concede that he made an error (which Shapiro does not do even once through to date five lengthy responses to Grossman). But to compel the reader to do your work for you, or to find you “compelling” in spite of it not being done, is just odd.

2. Note that in this essay we will focus on only the critiques raised in Grossman’s second article. His original article contains upwards of 70 additional critiques, which we will not be dwelling on here.

3. Grossman, pg. 163, and 171 fn. 27

4. As Shapiro puts it, “the mention of Abarbanel is with reference to my discussion about how the thirteen principles do not appear as a unit in the Mishna Torah or the Guide”. Grossman doesn’t make a big deal about it, but the dishonesty of this presentation is breathtaking. On page seven in his book, Shapiro is presenting the thesis that the principles were an early formulation of the Rambam’s that he didn’t include in his later works because he didn’t take them too seriously anymore. This paves the way for the book’s central thesis, that the principle’s significance has been exaggerated in the popular consciousness, and they are far less immutable than they are often assumed to be. The Abarbanel, and its mangled implications, are cited in that context, so what pray tell is Shapiro taking issue with? Yes, it was in reference to his “discussion about how the thirteen principles do not appear as a unit in the Mishna Torah or the Guide”, but that discussion was in there specifically to establish the relative insignificance of the principles. In what way is Grossman’s presentation a “misunderstanding of my [Shapiro’s] point”?

5. Apparently a prewar scholar who was considered an expert on Masoretic texts.

Here’s the full relevant passage from the Final Response:

“P. 174. In Limits I discuss different approaches to the phenomenon of tikkun soferim. While the generally accepted approach is that tikkun soferim is not to be taken literally, I cite a number of authorities who did take it literally and assumed that Ezra or the Anshei Keneset ha-Gedolah made changes to biblical texts (including the Torah). In a later post here (which has nothing to do with Grossman), I cited some other examples of sources that understood tikkun soferim literally. One of those I mentioned is R. Pesach Finfer. He states as follows:

ראוי הי‘ עזרא שתנתן התורה על ידו . . . והוא ונחמי‘ עשו תיקון סופרים וכינויי סופרים

Grossman says that it is unclear what I see in this line. What I see is that R. Finfer states that Ezra and Nehemiah were responsible for tikkunei soferim. This is the same language that is used in other sources that take the notion of tikkun soferim literally. For those who don’t take it literally, Ezra has nothing to do with tikkun soferim. Following the sentence I quoted from R. Finfer, he refers in parenthesis to Radbaz’s comment which offers a different perspective, that tikkun soferim is halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai. Here is the page.

(Shapiro then provides a picture of the page in R. Finfer’s sefer.)

6. Shapiro is kind enough to supply a picture of the page; here is Finfer’s quote in slightly more expanded form: והוא ונחמי‘ עשו תיקון סופרים וכינויי סופרים (ועי' רדב"ז ח"ג תקצד) ובדק בכל הספרים וסמך ע"פ רוב. To add to the fun, Shapiro assertively informs his readers that “for those who don’t take tikkun sofrim literally, Ezra has nothing to do with tikkun sofrim”. Well, the Radvaz clearly doesn’t take tikkun sofrim “literally”, and why on earth should it have less to do with Ezra than otherwise? In Shapiro’s version, sofrim (like Ezra) did research and amended the text according to their reasoning; in Radvaz sofrim (like Ezra) did research and amended the text according to their reasoning, but were validated by halacha l’Moshe mi-Sinai. Why does the former have to do with Ezra, but the latter have nothing to do with him? I suppose this is one of those things we’re just supposed to find compelling.