Unfortunately I have not read the book, and for reasons best left unmentioned, I do not see myself gaining access to it in the near future. If I did, I would write a review like I did to Slifkin's TCOC. Nevertheless I have read many Marc Shapiro essays and papers online, and so I can comment on those. He is not just an academic historian. He writes things that actively undermine the foundations of the Torah, indeed he seems to have a focus on that
As you can see, he's not just a scholar who does his homework as Shaul Shapira said, but like Slifkin, is a malicious figure who is an enemy of the Torah. If this is a "hatchet job", he deserves a lot more hatchets. Although these articles are from a few years ago and maybe he did teshuva 🤷
May 23, 2023Liked by מכרכר בכל עוז, Happy, Rational Traditionalist
A number of years back, someone sent me an excerpt from a piece written by Shapiro, and asked what I thought about it. I found a few major issues with his writing. I did not read the specific article this blog is referring to (and I have no plans on reading it), so I can't say definitively if what I say is relevant to this particular article of his, but this is the general idea I found with his writing.
There are 2 major flaws in Shapiro's work, and each manifests itself in several ways:
1. Source fudging. This shows itself in various ways
a) Quoting the source inaccurately. This happens way too often in Shapiro's writings for this to be a 'one time' mistake.
b) Taking the source out of context. This includes not citing the full quote, where the uncited parts clearly show that Shapiro's claim is wrong.
c) Selectively quoting. In the article I read, Shapiro quotes a source that he claims says something. In this case, his quote was accurate. There is another printing of the source that does not have this section. Shapiro actually acknowledges this in hos footnotes, but claims this is a forgery. He offers NO explanation whatsoever for why he thinks this edition is the forgery, and not the one he quotes.
2. A serious lack of appreciation for the mesorah, and those who interpret the mesorah. This too manifests in several ways:
a) He does not seem to be aware of who is a valid source and who is not. Just because something is in print does not make the source valid. Philo and Josephus were 2 Jews who lived in the days of the mishna. That does not make them tanai'im, and when their words contradict the tanai'im, we disregard them. I have seen him cite a 'Rav' who was placed in cherem by no less than the Bet Yosef and the Yam shel Shelomo. Others quote this Rav as well, but no one quotes him as a Halachic authority. Shapiro seems to be unaware of this, and puts on a list of Rabaonim who say something.
b) Similar to 'a'. A sefer whose author is unknown, is also not a valid source, especially for something controversial! There were rishonim who said things that were controversial (like the Rambam about kishuf), but we know who they were, so we can take their controversial writings seriously. An unknown author who says something controversial has no validity.
c) He gives equal weight to all sources. If an unknown or obscure sefer says something different than the Ramban, we give more weight to the words of the Ramban than to an unknown or obscure author.
d) Inability (or unwillingness) to properly analyze the sources he quotes. The gemara itself spends many pages asking contradictions between mishnayos, or between various statements by the same author. The gemara spends much effort to resolve these contradictions. The rishonim did this to the gemara, and the acharonim did this to the rishonim. They asked questions about what they said, and explained the gemara or rishon. Shapiro also asks contradictions. Someone with the proper respect for the Torah mesorah will work to resolve such a contradiction. (And when they can not satisfactorily resolve something, they say וצריך עיון (the matter needs more study), or לא ירדתי לסוף דבריו (I did not fully comprehend his words), or something along those lines. Shapiro, on the other hand, makes no effort to resolve the questions he asks. He feels free to disregard a source he has a question about, he says ridiculous things to the tune of they wrote it but didn't mean it, or they wrote it but didn't take it seriously. This is a position no Torah scholar will maintain.
d) He also gives himself the liberty to decide between the sources. If any source (no matter how reliable) says something, Shapiro feels that gives himself the right to decide that the source is correct, even against known rishonim.
e) Basing new and controversial ideas on very obscure or unknown authors. This is a complete rejection of the baaley mesorah who say otherwise.
At the end of the day, true Torah authorities do not take people like Shapiro seriously at all, which is why they rarely respond to his writings. The academics are so full of themselves, that they will never admit to a mistake by one of their own.
Great article, as usual. I would just add, don't think you have mastered the art of rebuttal yet, as practiced by Shapiro. Mentioning so many times how convincing Shapiro's article seems, is a tad too honest for the business you're in.
Grossman, at least in his original response, seems to hold that everyone agrees with the Rambam, which is plainly false. But later on, he tries to point out that the Rambam didn't make it out of thin air, which is true.
Shapiro wants to say because there are Rishonim who disagree (true) therefore, the ikkarim aren't binding (halakhic shayla irrelevant to whether or not the Rambam was original). He then switches to the Rambam made it up, which is clearly untrue - the Rambam certainly believed he had sources, even if other rishonim disagreed.
Both sides are both wrong and right and talking past each other.
"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."
Ok not “completely accepted” but that it took generalizations for this so called “process” which he completely invented.
“Since the masses needed to be
instructed in the nature of God's existence,66 and they
could not conceive of the existence of an incorporeal God, it was necessary for
them to be led to this belief in a progressive fashion. First they were taught of the existence of a corporeal God and only following this were they taught of his incorporeality. (Maimonides does not tell us if this process was accomplished quickly or took a number of generations”
Write an article about the importance of reading Substack posts by yeshivishe hockers regarding authentic Jewish belief. Use the following to guide you: "A common cause of faulty methodology is the academic’s lack of traditional anchors. Under constant pressure for their next contribution to the scholarly community, and refusing to accept normative parameters as binding (especially in ‘non-halakhic’ matters), they often resort to staking out some pretty far out there positions.
The traditionalist – who sees his role as to understand the mesorah, not to circumvent it – generally stays close enough to solid ground as to be able to scramble back if the going gets rough. The academic, on a lifelong quest for the next new twist or age old myth to overturn, cannot afford such luxuries."
ChatGPT
Title: The Importance of Reading Yeshivishe Hockers' Substack Posts for Authentic Jewish Belief
Introduction
In today's digital age, Substack has emerged as a popular platform for writers to share their thoughts, ideas, and expertise on various subjects. Within the realm of Jewish belief, Substack has become a valuable resource for accessing the writings of yeshivishe hockers. These individuals, committed to preserving and transmitting authentic Jewish tradition, provide a refreshing perspective in contrast to academic scholars who may sometimes deviate from traditional anchors. In this article, we will explore the significance of reading Substack posts by yeshivishe hockers regarding authentic Jewish belief, emphasizing the need for a solid grounding in the mesorah (tradition) while engaging with scholarly discourse.
The Pitfalls of Faulty Methodology
One common cause of faulty methodology in academic scholarship is the lack of traditional anchors. Scholars often face immense pressure to produce groundbreaking contributions to the scholarly community, leading some to abandon normative parameters, particularly in matters that are not strictly halakhic (related to Jewish law). In their quest for the next innovative twist or the desire to challenge age-old myths, these academics may find themselves staking out positions that deviate from established Jewish tradition.
In contrast, yeshivishe hockers embrace a different approach. They perceive their role as understanding and preserving the mesorah, rather than circumventing it. By staying close to the solid ground of traditional Jewish teachings, they maintain a strong connection to the enduring wisdom of our ancestors. This adherence to tradition enables them to navigate challenges and potential pitfalls, ensuring that they can scramble back if the going gets rough. Such grounding is essential in preserving the integrity of authentic Jewish belief.
Preserving Authentic Jewish Belief
Authentic Jewish belief is deeply rooted in the wisdom and values passed down through generations. It relies on a rich tapestry of Torah study, Halakhic rulings, ethical teachings, and historical perspectives. The yeshivishe hocker, committed to preserving and transmitting this legacy, plays a crucial role in upholding the authenticity of Jewish belief.
By reading Substack posts by yeshivishe hockers, individuals seeking authentic Jewish belief can benefit from their profound understanding of the mesorah. These writers draw upon traditional sources, delving into classical texts, commentaries, and the wisdom of past luminaries. Through their deep engagement with Jewish tradition, they offer readers a reliable and authoritative perspective on matters of faith, philosophy, and contemporary challenges.
Balancing Academic Discourse with Tradition
While academic scholarship can contribute valuable insights to our understanding of Jewish belief, it is important to balance it with a strong grounding in tradition. The yeshivishe hocker, rooted in the mesorah, provides a counterbalance to the academic scholar's perpetual search for novelty.
By engaging with Substack posts by yeshivishe hockers, readers can bridge the gap between scholarly discourse and traditional Jewish belief. These posts often address contemporary issues and challenges faced by the Jewish community, offering an authentic perspective that takes into account the timeless wisdom of Jewish tradition. This approach enables individuals to critically analyze and evaluate new ideas while maintaining a strong connection to their Jewish heritage.
Conclusion
In an era marked by rapid change and an abundance of information, it is crucial to seek authentic Jewish belief anchored in the mesorah. Substack posts by yeshivishe hockers provide a valuable resource for those seeking a reliable, traditional perspective on matters of Jewish faith. By reading their writings, individuals can deepen their understanding of Jewish tradition while engaging with contemporary challenges. Balancing academic scholarship with a steadfast commitment to the mesorah ensures the preservation of authentic Jewish belief for current and future generations.
I'm jumping in here super late, mostly because I really don't care for Marc Shapiro at all, he is not part of my system in any way shape or form. And because this stuff is way too long for me to read through, every time I think I'm going to try I only get through a few paragraphs - kudos to Herschel Grossman, and RT, for reading through all this tedious jargon! I appreciate the summary.
But here is what I can add which hasn't been discussed yet: under what grounds does Marc Shapiro see himself as an authority do discuss these Jewish values when he doesn't even know what they are referring to at their most basic level? The Rambam would be horrified to see a guy like Marc twisting his words into what he clearly never meant them to mean.
Rambam, hakdama to Moreh (mainly Sefaria translation, emphasis mine): “Concerning those who never beheld the light even for one day, but walk in continual darkness, it is written, "They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness". Truth, in spite of all its powerful manifestations, is *completely* withheld from them, and the following words of Scripture may be applied to them, "And now men see not the light which is bright in the skies". They are the multitude of ordinary men: there is no need to notice them in this treatise.”
There is something that the Rambam, and all of our greats had (something which Aristotle and Plato and Socrates also had): they detached themselves from their earthly body and entered the world of minds and intellects. This is discussed by those philosophers, as well as by many, many of our Gedolim throughout the generations (I have a list of like 40 already without trying too hard). Those who never experienced such things should at least have the humility to trust all those who did to know better since that is what those who did were describing. If not, you are discussing a world that is beyond you and truth is *completely* (strong words!) withheld from you.
Of course corporeality is debatable if you have no idea what Judaism preaches. Of course you know better than Reb Elchanan Wasserman, who (I can promise you) experienced the Rambam's light, if you know not what this world of minds is. You can even defy Chazal and the Torah itself if in your world there is no meaning to the Rambam's many ramblings about "being in the palace of the King" and "lightening" and on.
"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."
"If you look at the quotations from my book that Grossman has cited, you can see ellipses. The problem here, and this would be unknown to the average reader who does not bother to see what I actually wrote, is that the complete sentences without the ellipses mean something very different than what Grossman wants the readers to think they say. Here is the complete first sentence that he cites (from p. 7 in my book): “Presumably, Maimonides would be surprised that in seeking to define the essentials of Judaism, later generations of Jews, both scholars and masses, had latched onto his earlier work rather than his more detailed formulation in the Mishneh Torah.” I think all readers will agree that the part of the sentence that Grossman quotes, with strategic ellipses, does not give the reader the true sense of the sentence. I can’t say whether this is a result of bad faith or careless writing.
Here is the complete second sentence that Grossman cites (from p. 15 in my book): “It is certainly one of the ironies of Jewish history that the Thirteen Principles became the standard by which orthodoxy was judged, for, as is well known, Maimonides himself was attacked for supposedly holding heretical views, at odds with his very own Principles.” Again, we see that by use of a strategic ellipsis, Grossman give the reader a false impression of what I wrote."
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.
P. 163: In giving examples of supposed distortions in my book, Grossman writes: “One example is when Shapiro cites Rivash in support of the statement that Christians believe in a three-part God while the Kabbalists believe in a ten-part God – a clear rejection of the Second Principle. A quick glance at Rivash reveals that he does indeed say such a thing as a quote from a philosopher, which he then proceeds to debunk.”
I would like readers to take a look at the relevant page of my book (p. 40) and see if what Grossman says is correct, that I cited Rivash in support of the statement that Kabbalists believe in a ten-part God.
"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."
I.E. Dr Shapiro responded to R Grossman. Instead of responding to the response, R Grossman declared himself the victor of the entire matter, and proceeded to analyze the lessons to be learned from his great victory. Comical.
"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,"
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
" which he rather presumptuously chose to title “Final Response”.'
What exactly is presumptuous about it? He wrote 4 previous replies to R Grossman. He now is letting it be known that he doesn't plan to keep doing so, given that R Grossman clearly isn't interested in having a debate about the actual sources.
Unfortunately I have not read the book, and for reasons best left unmentioned, I do not see myself gaining access to it in the near future. If I did, I would write a review like I did to Slifkin's TCOC. Nevertheless I have read many Marc Shapiro essays and papers online, and so I can comment on those. He is not just an academic historian. He writes things that actively undermine the foundations of the Torah, indeed he seems to have a focus on that
https://seforimblog.com/2013/03/torah-mi-sinai-and-more/?print=print
https://seforimblog.com/2020/07/post-mosaic-additions-to-the-torah/
See this https://cross-currents.com/2017/05/21/changing-mind-modern-orthodoxy/
He writes very eloquently about how he would like to see halacha changed https://seforimblog.com/2016/01/the-agunah-problem-part-1-incarceration/
He has suggestions to bypass the inconvenient halachos https://seforimblog.com/2016/02/the-agunah-problem-part-2-wearing/
He is an apologist for open orthodoxy https://seforimblog.com/2016/02/open-orthodoxy-and-its-main-critic-par/
Partnership minyanim https://seforimblog.com/tag/marc-b-shapiro/page/14/?print=print-search
He writes hit pieces against chareidim (no surprise there) https://seforimblog.com/2012/06/future-of-israeli-haredi-society-can/
As you can see, he's not just a scholar who does his homework as Shaul Shapira said, but like Slifkin, is a malicious figure who is an enemy of the Torah. If this is a "hatchet job", he deserves a lot more hatchets. Although these articles are from a few years ago and maybe he did teshuva 🤷
A number of years back, someone sent me an excerpt from a piece written by Shapiro, and asked what I thought about it. I found a few major issues with his writing. I did not read the specific article this blog is referring to (and I have no plans on reading it), so I can't say definitively if what I say is relevant to this particular article of his, but this is the general idea I found with his writing.
There are 2 major flaws in Shapiro's work, and each manifests itself in several ways:
1. Source fudging. This shows itself in various ways
a) Quoting the source inaccurately. This happens way too often in Shapiro's writings for this to be a 'one time' mistake.
b) Taking the source out of context. This includes not citing the full quote, where the uncited parts clearly show that Shapiro's claim is wrong.
c) Selectively quoting. In the article I read, Shapiro quotes a source that he claims says something. In this case, his quote was accurate. There is another printing of the source that does not have this section. Shapiro actually acknowledges this in hos footnotes, but claims this is a forgery. He offers NO explanation whatsoever for why he thinks this edition is the forgery, and not the one he quotes.
2. A serious lack of appreciation for the mesorah, and those who interpret the mesorah. This too manifests in several ways:
a) He does not seem to be aware of who is a valid source and who is not. Just because something is in print does not make the source valid. Philo and Josephus were 2 Jews who lived in the days of the mishna. That does not make them tanai'im, and when their words contradict the tanai'im, we disregard them. I have seen him cite a 'Rav' who was placed in cherem by no less than the Bet Yosef and the Yam shel Shelomo. Others quote this Rav as well, but no one quotes him as a Halachic authority. Shapiro seems to be unaware of this, and puts on a list of Rabaonim who say something.
b) Similar to 'a'. A sefer whose author is unknown, is also not a valid source, especially for something controversial! There were rishonim who said things that were controversial (like the Rambam about kishuf), but we know who they were, so we can take their controversial writings seriously. An unknown author who says something controversial has no validity.
c) He gives equal weight to all sources. If an unknown or obscure sefer says something different than the Ramban, we give more weight to the words of the Ramban than to an unknown or obscure author.
d) Inability (or unwillingness) to properly analyze the sources he quotes. The gemara itself spends many pages asking contradictions between mishnayos, or between various statements by the same author. The gemara spends much effort to resolve these contradictions. The rishonim did this to the gemara, and the acharonim did this to the rishonim. They asked questions about what they said, and explained the gemara or rishon. Shapiro also asks contradictions. Someone with the proper respect for the Torah mesorah will work to resolve such a contradiction. (And when they can not satisfactorily resolve something, they say וצריך עיון (the matter needs more study), or לא ירדתי לסוף דבריו (I did not fully comprehend his words), or something along those lines. Shapiro, on the other hand, makes no effort to resolve the questions he asks. He feels free to disregard a source he has a question about, he says ridiculous things to the tune of they wrote it but didn't mean it, or they wrote it but didn't take it seriously. This is a position no Torah scholar will maintain.
d) He also gives himself the liberty to decide between the sources. If any source (no matter how reliable) says something, Shapiro feels that gives himself the right to decide that the source is correct, even against known rishonim.
e) Basing new and controversial ideas on very obscure or unknown authors. This is a complete rejection of the baaley mesorah who say otherwise.
At the end of the day, true Torah authorities do not take people like Shapiro seriously at all, which is why they rarely respond to his writings. The academics are so full of themselves, that they will never admit to a mistake by one of their own.
Great article, as usual. I would just add, don't think you have mastered the art of rebuttal yet, as practiced by Shapiro. Mentioning so many times how convincing Shapiro's article seems, is a tad too honest for the business you're in.
Honestly, both sides are talking past each other.
Grossman, at least in his original response, seems to hold that everyone agrees with the Rambam, which is plainly false. But later on, he tries to point out that the Rambam didn't make it out of thin air, which is true.
Shapiro wants to say because there are Rishonim who disagree (true) therefore, the ikkarim aren't binding (halakhic shayla irrelevant to whether or not the Rambam was original). He then switches to the Rambam made it up, which is clearly untrue - the Rambam certainly believed he had sources, even if other rishonim disagreed.
Both sides are both wrong and right and talking past each other.
"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."
Wait, this is supposed to be a bad thing?
Ok not “completely accepted” but that it took generalizations for this so called “process” which he completely invented.
“Since the masses needed to be
instructed in the nature of God's existence,66 and they
could not conceive of the existence of an incorporeal God, it was necessary for
them to be led to this belief in a progressive fashion. First they were taught of the existence of a corporeal God and only following this were they taught of his incorporeality. (Maimonides does not tell us if this process was accomplished quickly or took a number of generations”
User
Write an article about the importance of reading Substack posts by yeshivishe hockers regarding authentic Jewish belief. Use the following to guide you: "A common cause of faulty methodology is the academic’s lack of traditional anchors. Under constant pressure for their next contribution to the scholarly community, and refusing to accept normative parameters as binding (especially in ‘non-halakhic’ matters), they often resort to staking out some pretty far out there positions.
The traditionalist – who sees his role as to understand the mesorah, not to circumvent it – generally stays close enough to solid ground as to be able to scramble back if the going gets rough. The academic, on a lifelong quest for the next new twist or age old myth to overturn, cannot afford such luxuries."
ChatGPT
Title: The Importance of Reading Yeshivishe Hockers' Substack Posts for Authentic Jewish Belief
Introduction
In today's digital age, Substack has emerged as a popular platform for writers to share their thoughts, ideas, and expertise on various subjects. Within the realm of Jewish belief, Substack has become a valuable resource for accessing the writings of yeshivishe hockers. These individuals, committed to preserving and transmitting authentic Jewish tradition, provide a refreshing perspective in contrast to academic scholars who may sometimes deviate from traditional anchors. In this article, we will explore the significance of reading Substack posts by yeshivishe hockers regarding authentic Jewish belief, emphasizing the need for a solid grounding in the mesorah (tradition) while engaging with scholarly discourse.
The Pitfalls of Faulty Methodology
One common cause of faulty methodology in academic scholarship is the lack of traditional anchors. Scholars often face immense pressure to produce groundbreaking contributions to the scholarly community, leading some to abandon normative parameters, particularly in matters that are not strictly halakhic (related to Jewish law). In their quest for the next innovative twist or the desire to challenge age-old myths, these academics may find themselves staking out positions that deviate from established Jewish tradition.
In contrast, yeshivishe hockers embrace a different approach. They perceive their role as understanding and preserving the mesorah, rather than circumventing it. By staying close to the solid ground of traditional Jewish teachings, they maintain a strong connection to the enduring wisdom of our ancestors. This adherence to tradition enables them to navigate challenges and potential pitfalls, ensuring that they can scramble back if the going gets rough. Such grounding is essential in preserving the integrity of authentic Jewish belief.
Preserving Authentic Jewish Belief
Authentic Jewish belief is deeply rooted in the wisdom and values passed down through generations. It relies on a rich tapestry of Torah study, Halakhic rulings, ethical teachings, and historical perspectives. The yeshivishe hocker, committed to preserving and transmitting this legacy, plays a crucial role in upholding the authenticity of Jewish belief.
By reading Substack posts by yeshivishe hockers, individuals seeking authentic Jewish belief can benefit from their profound understanding of the mesorah. These writers draw upon traditional sources, delving into classical texts, commentaries, and the wisdom of past luminaries. Through their deep engagement with Jewish tradition, they offer readers a reliable and authoritative perspective on matters of faith, philosophy, and contemporary challenges.
Balancing Academic Discourse with Tradition
While academic scholarship can contribute valuable insights to our understanding of Jewish belief, it is important to balance it with a strong grounding in tradition. The yeshivishe hocker, rooted in the mesorah, provides a counterbalance to the academic scholar's perpetual search for novelty.
By engaging with Substack posts by yeshivishe hockers, readers can bridge the gap between scholarly discourse and traditional Jewish belief. These posts often address contemporary issues and challenges faced by the Jewish community, offering an authentic perspective that takes into account the timeless wisdom of Jewish tradition. This approach enables individuals to critically analyze and evaluate new ideas while maintaining a strong connection to their Jewish heritage.
Conclusion
In an era marked by rapid change and an abundance of information, it is crucial to seek authentic Jewish belief anchored in the mesorah. Substack posts by yeshivishe hockers provide a valuable resource for those seeking a reliable, traditional perspective on matters of Jewish faith. By reading their writings, individuals can deepen their understanding of Jewish tradition while engaging with contemporary challenges. Balancing academic scholarship with a steadfast commitment to the mesorah ensures the preservation of authentic Jewish belief for current and future generations.
I'm jumping in here super late, mostly because I really don't care for Marc Shapiro at all, he is not part of my system in any way shape or form. And because this stuff is way too long for me to read through, every time I think I'm going to try I only get through a few paragraphs - kudos to Herschel Grossman, and RT, for reading through all this tedious jargon! I appreciate the summary.
But here is what I can add which hasn't been discussed yet: under what grounds does Marc Shapiro see himself as an authority do discuss these Jewish values when he doesn't even know what they are referring to at their most basic level? The Rambam would be horrified to see a guy like Marc twisting his words into what he clearly never meant them to mean.
Rambam, hakdama to Moreh (mainly Sefaria translation, emphasis mine): “Concerning those who never beheld the light even for one day, but walk in continual darkness, it is written, "They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness". Truth, in spite of all its powerful manifestations, is *completely* withheld from them, and the following words of Scripture may be applied to them, "And now men see not the light which is bright in the skies". They are the multitude of ordinary men: there is no need to notice them in this treatise.”
There is something that the Rambam, and all of our greats had (something which Aristotle and Plato and Socrates also had): they detached themselves from their earthly body and entered the world of minds and intellects. This is discussed by those philosophers, as well as by many, many of our Gedolim throughout the generations (I have a list of like 40 already without trying too hard). Those who never experienced such things should at least have the humility to trust all those who did to know better since that is what those who did were describing. If not, you are discussing a world that is beyond you and truth is *completely* (strong words!) withheld from you.
Of course corporeality is debatable if you have no idea what Judaism preaches. Of course you know better than Reb Elchanan Wasserman, who (I can promise you) experienced the Rambam's light, if you know not what this world of minds is. You can even defy Chazal and the Torah itself if in your world there is no meaning to the Rambam's many ramblings about "being in the palace of the King" and "lightening" and on.
Shapira/Shapiro wins this round! (Hey - Where's Yakov when we need him?)
Anyone know if Shaul Shapira here is Marc Shapiro?
"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."
This was already responded to here:
https://seforimblog.com/2020/08/response-to-criticism-part-3/#:~:text=If%20you%20look,or%20careless%20writing.
"If you look at the quotations from my book that Grossman has cited, you can see ellipses. The problem here, and this would be unknown to the average reader who does not bother to see what I actually wrote, is that the complete sentences without the ellipses mean something very different than what Grossman wants the readers to think they say. Here is the complete first sentence that he cites (from p. 7 in my book): “Presumably, Maimonides would be surprised that in seeking to define the essentials of Judaism, later generations of Jews, both scholars and masses, had latched onto his earlier work rather than his more detailed formulation in the Mishneh Torah.” I think all readers will agree that the part of the sentence that Grossman quotes, with strategic ellipses, does not give the reader the true sense of the sentence. I can’t say whether this is a result of bad faith or careless writing.
Here is the complete second sentence that Grossman cites (from p. 15 in my book): “It is certainly one of the ironies of Jewish history that the Thirteen Principles became the standard by which orthodoxy was judged, for, as is well known, Maimonides himself was attacked for supposedly holding heretical views, at odds with his very own Principles.” Again, we see that by use of a strategic ellipsis, Grossman give the reader a false impression of what I wrote."
Care to respond to this?
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.
https://seforimblog.com/2023/05/final-response/#:~:text=P.%20162%3A%20%E2%80%9CIn,ten%2Dpart%20God.
P. 163: In giving examples of supposed distortions in my book, Grossman writes: “One example is when Shapiro cites Rivash in support of the statement that Christians believe in a three-part God while the Kabbalists believe in a ten-part God – a clear rejection of the Second Principle. A quick glance at Rivash reveals that he does indeed say such a thing as a quote from a philosopher, which he then proceeds to debunk.”
I would like readers to take a look at the relevant page of my book (p. 40) and see if what Grossman says is correct, that I cited Rivash in support of the statement that Kabbalists believe in a ten-part God.
"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."
I.E. Dr Shapiro responded to R Grossman. Instead of responding to the response, R Grossman declared himself the victor of the entire matter, and proceeded to analyze the lessons to be learned from his great victory. Comical.
"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,"
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc.
" which he rather presumptuously chose to title “Final Response”.'
What exactly is presumptuous about it? He wrote 4 previous replies to R Grossman. He now is letting it be known that he doesn't plan to keep doing so, given that R Grossman clearly isn't interested in having a debate about the actual sources.
What about people that claim 'yichud' does not mean ''seclusion'?
Wow, this Shapiro dude is a real piece of work. He must have taken a propaganda course at Trump University or something.