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 🤷
“I think most people will still be troubled reading the following words from R. Grodzinski, from which we see that he saw no problem in condemning her to live the rest of her life without receiving a get”
This is bodem with klutz. R. Grodzinsky is quoting word for word the lashon of a tshevos harash as he attempts to ascertain if it’s logic would apply in his case. It’s completely bizarre to pretend there is any inference whether or not R. Grodzinsky personally “had a problem condemning her”.
"As I said already, I have no problem with criticism of OO and no one has ever mistaken me for an adherent of OO. But I believe in fair play and giving credit where credit is due. I also regret writing my piece since people’s opinions are so strongly held on this matter that it is hard to have real dialogue and try to understand the other side."
I thank Rabbi Gordimer for responding in a respectful manner."
"As you say, I am a professor, not a posek. I cannot speak about the halakhic legitimacy of reforms. If people want I would be happy to explain why e.g., I am opposed to Partnership Minyanim, seeing them as a real divergence from traditional Judaism. But I have done that in the past, before large audiences. Before large audiences I have discussed what I find problematic in Orthodox feminism (and I have mentioned on numerous occasions how years ago JOFA didn’t let me speak at its convention). Before large audiences I have also discussed the significance of Open Orthodoxy. None of this is news to people who know my writings and have heard my lectures or participated in my online classes."
That is called being an apologist. What would you say about somebody who would write adoring articles about all the good Chaim Walder has done (which would be accurate)?
If they also noted that he's molester who destroyed lives? I'm not entirely sure what I would say. ערבך ערבא צריך
But it's not a great comparison anyhow. Shapiro is discussing ideas. Ideas which are freely available to anyone with a computer mouse. Ideas which people are free to dispute, reject, or write nasty and sarcastic articles in a journal about. My understanding is that Walder's victims were in a somewhat more vulnerable position.
Let's say they wrote an article exactly like Shapiro did, criticizing people who only have criticism for Chaim Walder. And writing a disclaimer that "I have no problem with people who criticize Chaim Walder, as long as there are no personal attacks". But Chaim Walder has also done many good and wonderful things, etc, etc. I don't know about you but I'm pretty certain most people would be outraged. What Shapiro wrote was outrageous and terrible.
"I anticipated a prolonged and unpleasant back-and-forth, which would be fruitless and only cause more strife.
But last evening, when I finally again got to my email, rays of light were shining, for Dr. Shapiro had sent several kind comments and messages clarifying that the issues were not personal, graciously (and unnecessarily) apologizing for any hard feelings, and also explaining his work and his goals. I apologized for any overstatement of his identification with controversial views, and we proceeded to share our hopes that our public exchange not be perceived as reflective of any type of sinah or personal affront. Our exchange was about ideas only. My communications with Dr. Shapiro were really refreshing.
....
But even when dealing with controversy, and even when the discourse is heated, let it not be perceived as sinah or personal clash. It is about ideas only. My exchange with Dr. Shapiro, and his kind and classy reaching out to clarify, are a deep lesson to all."
Marc Shapiro, always the genial, civil, stick-to-the-issues gentleman, on Rabbi Gordimer:
"This obsession with the Open Orthodox reminds me of how in earlier centuries Christian zealots “could declare themselves ‘crusaders’, join a company of St. Peter Martyr, and assume a special responsibility for denouncing suspicious behavior to the Holy Office.”"
"It appears to me, and many others, that all of Rabbi Gordimer’s attacks are pretty meaningless by now, as we get it, he doesn’t like Open Orthodoxy and he thinks that they are not “Orthodox” (a Christian term which perhaps it is time to jettison). Simply drumming this point continuously is not going to make it any clearer."
"As mentioned, he will spend hours and hours reading their material until he finally hits pay dirt. We are never told about any of the good things he sees in the writers he so often attacks, and how 99% of what he reads in their writings is not objectionable."
"Rabbi Avrohom Gordimer, who has assumed the mantle of defender of the faith. He sees his goal as exposing the non-Orthodox nature of Open Orthodoxy, and has spent many hundreds of hours reading everything written by Open Orthodox figures (and their spouses), looking for a problematic sentence in order to pounce on them."
"I realize he doesn’t respect these figures, but to even deny them the simple courtesy of mentioning their names, as if to do so is muktzeh mehamat mius, is in my opinion simply disgraceful (albeit a common writing style in the haredi world)."
"There are good reasons people can offer in opposition to Partnership Minyanim without falling into the “pan-halakhic” trap that everything you oppose has to be shown to be halakhically improper.... But as mentioned already, lack of a prohibition doesn’t necessarily make something a good idea. Plenty of synagogues will not let someone serve as a hazan if he is wearing jeans (or if he is not wearing a jacket or hat), yet this doesn’t mean that we need to find a technical halakhic objection for something which is at essence a matter of synagogue custom and propriety, and therefore does not need to be supported by halakhic sources. By the same token, I think we have reached the point whereby the typical Orthodox rabbi acknowledges (privately, at least) that there is no real halakhic objection to a woman rabbi, while at the same time continuing to oppose the concept (much like many oppose yoatzot halakhah). They oppose it because of how women rabbis will change the structure of traditional Judaism, change it in way they view as negative. This point can be made without using halakhic arguments that after a little investigation people will see don’t carry any weight. This is especially so in the Modern Orthodox world where there are women principals of Jewish day school, women synagogue presidents, women teachers of Talmud, women learning advanced halakhah, and no one bats an eye when a woman speaks in front of men.
For those who oppose things like women leading Kabbalat Shabbat, a weak halakhic argument is worse than no argument at all. The best tactic for the opponents is simply to keep the issue focused on what direction is best for Judaism. It is known that a number of great rabbis refused to provide halakhic reasons for particular decisions they gave, especially when the halakhic justification was weak. They chose this path precisely because they didn’t want these issues to become matters of halakhic debate, as there were other, even more important considerations guiding them."
No idea what you see there. Rabbi Gordimer quoted Dr Shapiro's research on the current state of affairs. There wasn't any advocacy on Dr Shapiro's part.
Someone who defends the concept of women "rabbis" and the whole feminist שגעון, as halakhically valid, and only a matter of structural issues, is either a עם הארץ גמור or a רשע
"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."
Can you clarify what that's supposed to mean? Are you saying that if someone is "a malicious figure who is an enemy of the Torah" they deserve to be slandered and have claims attributed to them which they never made? Sounds like the justification for rewriting history.....which he has a book about too.
His book is succinctly summed up by Sochasascewski here:
“In his more recent work, Changing the Immutable: How Orthodox Judaism Rewrites Its History (Portland: Littman Library, 2015), pp. 25-26, Maimonides' alleged contrivances are woven into a broader tapestry of not infrequent misrepresentation by Torah scholars throughout the ages for a variety of goals.
While an analysis of that work is beyond the scope of this essay, for the moment, I would note the fol- lowing: All the examples cited by Shapiro relating to misrepresentation of Torah (which isn't the subject of the majority of the book) can be included in one or more of the following categories: a) the claim of misrepresentation is ambigu- ous, as Shapiro's source can plausibly be understood in an alternative fashion; b) the perpetrator isn't one of the gedolei ba-dor, rather a mediocre scholar or layman; c) the misrepresentation has no practical bearing on the subject; d) the agent is of the view that the item he is suppressing or misrepresenting is incor- rect or does not reflect the final halakhah and thus deserves to be suppressed or misrepresented; e) the misrepresentation was made temporarily for some con- structive purpose and was thereafter corrected; f) it was directed to an individual, a group, or even the unlearned masses to accomplish specific halakhically-man- dated goals, while the authentic teachings were accurately preserved for posterity within the academy and accessible to any serious student. The upshot of all this is that Shapiro's research does not seem to yield a single unambiguous instance of the following significant category: willful distortion for posterity of the historical body of Jewish tradition at the hands of one of its custodians, the gedolei ba-dorot.
By contrast, this is exactly what Shapiro attributes to Maimonides.”
"His book is succinctly summed up by Sochasascewski here:"
Nonsense. Did you even read the quote before copying and pasting it? What part of "an analysis of that work is beyond the scope of this essay, " did you not get?
Lol we are still waiting for you to explain the relevance of the part of the response you copied and pasted from Shapiro to this post, and you cry about a world choice of “summed up” when it isn’t a full fledged analysis 😂
"we are still waiting for you to explain the relevance of the part of the response'
I see. Very anti-climactic and whatnot.
" and you cry about a world choice of “summed up” when it isn’t a full fledged analysis 😂"
Yes, I'm crying. And deeply impatient. You nailed me the way R Grossman's nailed Dr Shapiro. Completely accurate and sober portrayals. The "academics" must be terrified. They're being completely exposed, emojis and all.
"Dr. Marc Shapiro is renowned within the world of Jewish academic scholarship for his important contributions to the field of Jewish intellectual
history. His meticulous and indefatigable research, shared in his celebrated books and widely followed online classes and postings, regularly
yields fascinating discoveries from obscure corners of Torah literature and
Jewish history. Significantly, his work has captured the interest of those
beyond the walls of academia, popularizing awareness of nuance and development within Judaism that often goes unnoticed.
....
"As this essay was nearing completion, two reviews of such nature surprisingly
materialized: Phillips, Judaism, pp. 67-84, and Herschel Grossman, “The Limits
of Academic Criticism,” Dialogue 8 (Fall 2019), pp. 35-83. The former focuses
on the third chapter of Limits, which is not the subject of the current essay. The
latter critiques various points throughout the book. Rabbi Grossman makes several important observations about particular items in Shapiro’s research, and I
second his call for greater appreciation of the traditional assumptions and attitudes regarding dogma. However, at times he seems to display ignorance of the
subject matters (e.g., see further in this essay, fn. 49, 50) and fails to appreciate
the very real problems Shapiro addresses (such as the implications of Guide 2:25;
see later in this essay). On occasion, Grossman appears to completely misread
Shapiro (e.g., Grossman, p. 54, where it’s clear that Shapiro is adducing evidence
from the philosopher quoted by Rivash, and not from Rivash himself). Furthermore, Grossman adopts the approach of extreme harmonization, in which the
positions of all Torah authorities are axiomatically presumed consistent with one
another, even when sound judgment dictates otherwise. For example, Shapiro’s
observations about later authorities departing from Maimonides’ positions and
these authorities’ unfamiliarity with medieval philosophy—which is obvious to
any educated reader—are described by Grossman (p. 37) as making a mockery
"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."
Sochasascewski: "Dr. Marc Shapiro is renowned within the world of Jewish academic scholarship for his important contributions to the field of Jewish intellectual history. His meticulous and indefatigable research, shared in his celebrated books and widely followed online classes and postings, regularly yields fascinating discoveries from obscure corners of Torah literature and Jewish history."
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.
I see 2a alot. In this very discussion- Who the heck is Rav Chaim Sofer, Rav Pesach Finfer, Rav Avraham Pessin, Yeshayahu Maori?? I mean, I'm sure they were talmidei chachamim and scholars, but who said these random people's opinion on the ikkarei emunah means anything?? Oh yeah, I'll find some random rabbi who wrote in a sefer that Moshiach came yesterday. Amazing, I just proved the ikkarei emunah are not universally accepted!
That's true, and has been noted by many people prior to Rabbi Grossman. In fairness to Dr Shapiro, he's not claiming they're authoritative (whatever that might even mean in this context.)
But I personally thought his book was overkill. His original article was long enough and made all of his central points, as far as I can tell.
That's not true. Aside from misquoting and misrepresenting classic sources, he brings from every Tom, Dick, and Harry to try to build a "consensus" that the 13 Ikkarim were not accepted. As an aside, I just so happen to be acquainted with one of the sources that Shapiro brings. The fellow was not at all considered an authority by any means - I don't think people would even bother saying over a simple psak halacha from him. And certainly not on weighty issues such as the 13 ikkarim. The fact that Shapiro brings the guy as a 'proof' to support his position is pretty ridiculous!
Citing non authoritative writers means nothing. If a writer is not an authority, his writings are dismissed out of hand. If the pope were to write a commentary on the chumash, I think you would agree, that we don't need to take it seriously, and we would dismiss it out of hand. Citing an unknown, hitherto unpublished manuscript, means nothing. It can be dismissed out of hand. All the more so when Shapiro is making controversial claims, unknown and unpublished authors are not valid sources.
I would not put Rav Chaim Sofer in the same category as the others. Regardless, there is nothing significant to see from what he says, none withstanding the admittedly misrepresentation by Grossman.
"Artscroll did what everyone should do when an error is brought to their attention, namely, correct it in a future edition.... In fact, this is a good lesson to all of us, because if Artscroll, whose writers are big talmidei hakhamim, could make such a simple mistake, then all of us should realize that we too can make simple errors."
Dr Shapiro corrects himself all the time, and I find him intellectually honest in that regard. That being said it’s all the more concerning that, say for example, he refuses to concede that he completely botched the Magid Mishna. This indicates he earnestly believes his egregiously mistaken interpretation of it, which to me is equally concerning.
Let me explain what I meant, as I was not clear in my original post. In the link you sent, Shapiro assumed a certain translation for the phrase in Adon Olam. Apparently he gets a high out of showing off to people where Artscroll made a mistake, their mistake being that they did not agree to Shapiro's translation. Shapiro then found a citation from a Rav who agrees with Artscroll, and retracted their 'mistake'. Such a backtrack was not what I was referring to.
In the other article of Shapiro's that I read, he clearly misquotes sources. Since his agenda, that of making the Torah observant Leadership look bad, is one the academics support, such an article is automatically given a 5 star review. SHapiro botching sources in bad enough, when other academics applaud articles with clearly botched sources, that speaks lowly of their supposed scholarship. I do not know if 'the academics' had what to say about Shapiro's article that I read, but it is the general attitude that I refer to.
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.
I think it's important to point out how convincing his article is. In fact, I'd encourage people to read Shapiro's piece BEFORE reading our analysis just to see what kind of impression it makes on you.
My main purpose is to recognize that disconnect between how convincing his writings come across and how vacuous they really are. Hopefully when we see it spelled out enough times we'll either be able to spot the sleights more easily, or at the very least be wise enough to disregard him.
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.
My concern here is not so much Shapiro's thesis but his tactics, and the general implications on his scholarship. I do hope to make some closing comments on the actual thesis when we finish going through the whole response. But that's some time away.
This may be a true generalization, but there are numerous points to be debated on the way.
For example, I may not agree with Grossmans overall viewpoint, but he sure as anything obliterated the claim that there is anything to see in the Rambam in hilchos geirus, and aptly showed how comical it was for Kelner to claim he has a better understanding of the Rambam than Rav Elchonan, and proceeds to build a בנין based on his understanding that the Rambam added אין מאריכים עמו, failing to realize it’s an explicit Gemara.
brought enough material from recognized authorities to prove his thesis
denying that Rambam’s principles represent the final word in Jewish
theology. At the same time, as Shapiro himself acknowledges, and as we
have argued above, dogma remains an integral aspect of Judaism....
Even taking these factors into consideration, they do not lead to the dissolution of dogma. We can allow flexibility up to the point when certain fundamentals are abandoned.
Judaism resembles a structure with much leeway on most floors but an
inflexible foundation at the ground level. Shapiro deserves credit for
showing that that Rambam did not precisely identify the foundation.
"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."
If it has been demonstrated to be wrong on some matters, which he has, then yes, defending a clearly demonstrated mistake of his isn’t such a good thing.
It might be more helpful to your case if you actually discuss the content of the arguments, because those that agree with Grossman wouldn’t say he’s CLAIMING rather they would say he DEMONSTRATED.
My case doesn't need to be helped. I said my piece. ve'idach zil gemor.
"those that agree with Grossman wouldn’t say he’s CLAIMING rather they would say he DEMONSTRATED."
Right. Those who agree with the claim that it's been demonstrated will agree that it's correct to claim that it's been demonstrated. And they can demonstrate that they claim that by claiming that.
Just so we are keeping track, “your piece” thus far consists of a nonsensical reference to a response of Shapiro which you think refutes a point RT made in a footnote, and a whole lot of whining about how Dr Shapiro is being treated.
A bit anticlimactic for someone claiming this post is a hatchet job.
I'm glad you're keeping track. Of whatever it is you're tracking.
"a nonsensical reference"
It's only nonsensical if you suppose that Rabbi Grossman and Mecharker actually demonstrated all of those things which you claimed he demonstrated. See above.
"RT made in a footnote"
I responded to several things in the body of the article too. See above
"A bit anticlimactic for someone claiming this post is a hatchet job."
I'm not sure what you were expecting. I commented on a substack article. I didn't announce anything which, could, would, or should have a climax.
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.
"for the general lessons it teaches about your mindset, which I believe puts many things into perspective about your arguments in general."
Oh my, *more* methodology????
"If you'll count, you'll see that I dropped a total of five comments on this thread yesterday."
I wasn't counting. I rely on your detailed box scores about who got what right, along with your learned assessments about what's been 'Correctly responded' to versus
'Ignored' 'Obfuscated through' and 'Reengineered'. Then I wait for your insightful analysis about what that says about someone's whose 'authority comes more from his ability to fudge than to learn." After all, "It’s important to constantly remind ourselves of this."
"If you must know, during that intervening time I said two shiurim, chazered 9 blat gemara, "
I know, we all know. You've repeatedly demonstrated your complete mastery of shas, poskim, and analysis of academic Rebuttalism. Why, just look at all of the endless chidushei torah you've shared about...well, about.....
Ashrei ha'am.
"and celebrated a siyum. "
Mazel Tov!
"During that same period, you were commenting and posting nonstop, as you had been for the previous 24 hours, culminating in an impressive display of lack of a life with your repeated artificial intelligence generated inanities."
I won't disagree with any of that.
"This may also shed light on the oddity of someone who's been an active blog creature since at least 2014 dropping repeated condescending comments about the silly substack users..."
Wait, how did you get my postings from 2014 on your t9 flip phone?
"Why am I pointing all this out? Because I think you'll find that many of your gripes about me and my style begin to make a lot more sense when we read them through the perspective of your penchant for projecting your and your hero's faults onto others."
Maybe. Alternatively, maybe you tend to indulge in a whole lot of psycho-babble about what various people really mean about what they say, what's 'sly subterfuge,' and so on, and on, and on. If you've noticed, I try to engage respectfully when someone makes a substantive argument. But it's impossible to have a discussion with people who refuse to engage on the matter at hand. If my misunderstandings of Shapiro are so fundamental, prove it. Quote him, quote me, and and show what I've misunderstood. Genuk shoyn with the endless ploppling about nothing. Show receipts already. As someone once said: "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.'
After all your comments, I still don't see your problem with RT's post. He made it very clear that the intention of this analysis was to criticize Shapiro, not engage in a totally unbiased both-sides treatment of the issue. He didn't attempt to hide his biases. And he showed a few places where Shapiro was wrong. I still don't get your problem with the Abarbanel (based on the paragraph that was quoted in Shapiro's Final Response, as I said, I didn't see the book inside). Do you agree with RT about the Radvaz?
First, you accuse the guy of slander. Terms like kanoi, pashkivil, knee jerk reactionary are popular.
Then you say nuh uh.
Then you sigh mightily and wonder aloud why this guy can't just stick to the substance.
You'll notice that he came out of the gate kvetching about the gratuitous attack on Shapiro, and thus far after probably over a hundred comments, he has not yet given a single example of something in the main critiques of Shapiro that he can find a hole in.
"If you've noticed, I try to engage respectfully when someone makes a substantive argument. But it's impossible to have a discussion with people who refuse to engage on the matter at hand. If my misunderstandings of Shapiro are so fundamental, prove it. Quote him, quote me, and and show what I've misunderstood."
I have the greatest respect for people like Lou who have the patience and computer access to engage in endless circular conversations with you about basics that every bar bei rav can see is infantile, but that you unfortunately fell for Shapiro's academic credentials and self-assured tone about.
Alas, I have neither. And when your starting point is that Shapiro saying that "in Abarbanel's mind little attention should be paid and we shouldn't draw conclusions from the ikkarim" means something about him being surprised at the catechism v'zehu, and then you demand that I prove you wrong, I have enough experience to know that we're not gonna get too far on this one.
And when when you announce that I "slandered" Shapiro, with absolutely nothing to back that up with, you're not in a position to kvetch about my lack of mentchlichkeit. A little self awareness and maybe some chazara of your earliest comments on this post might clear things up a bit.
Again, you claimed I misunderstand Shapiro. Fundamentally. If my misunderstandings of Shapiro are so fundamental, prove it. "Quote him, quote me, and and show what I've misunderstood."
Till then, ignore what follows. You're waaaaaay too busy for this:
Yo, listen up, I'll lay it down in rap,
Respect to people like Lou, engaging in endless chat,
Talking basics that every bar bei rav can see,
But you fell for Shapiro's credentials, oh, gee!
I ain't got the patience or the computer access,
But let me tell you, your starting point's a mess,
You think Shapiro's words mean something profound,
But it's just a surprise, no conclusions to be found.
You demand proof, but I know the score,
We won't get far, we've been here before,
And you accuse me of slandering, no proof in sight,
But don't complain 'bout my lack of mentchlichkeit.
You need some self-awareness, take a step back,
Go back and read your comments, no attack,
Let's clear things up, with some chazara, my friend,
Excellent. Spectacularly done. You managed to make a letzanusdik comment about every line in that comment without once acknowledging (let alone deflecting) the actual point of the comment - that you had put out a letzanus poem about me that applies beautifully to you but not at all to me.
I see you've absorbed everything your master has to teach you.
Your posts are about as full of leitzanus and cheap shots as you can get. If you don't like being the target of ridicule, maybe don't engage in so much of it yourself.
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."
I wasn't being facetious. If you can explain what about this quote negates my arguments, I'd really like to hear it and address it. Also, if I indeed slandered him, or said something that can be misconstrued as such, I'd like to know about it.
"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)."
Virtually everything here is wrong, and slanderously so. He isn't "best known for his revisionist scholarship of Judaism’s intellectual history,"
It isn't true that "Rarely does a critique of his work go by without a vigorous rejoinder from the professor." He hasn't responded to either of the prior 2 critiques I cited above either.
' 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. "
I've read plenty of Dr Shapiro's work. And critiscm of such. And I've never wondered about the intellectual capacities of his critics until the Rabbi Grossman showed up and flaunted his.
"(One notable exception is our essay “On Knowing How to Learn, Part II”, which to date has not been addressed by Dr. Shapiro).'
Said substack post is neither notable nor an exception to anything.
I suppose if you define revisionism as anything which is novel. Though I'm not sure what that would really even mean. As opposed to what? Confirming what everyone already believes anyhow?
Ok fair enough. You had me nervous there - I had assumed that when you said I "slandered" Shapiro you meant that I had said some stuff that were, y'know, slanderous. These I can live with, even if you were right about them.
As for the rest of your ridiculous examples, there's nothing "slanderous" about them even if they'd be false, so there's no need to belabor the point. I'll sleep just fine tonight.
If you can try to articulate what what it is you see here that affects anything I wrote, as well as specify where you see 'slander' in my article, I'll do my best to clarify or concede as appropriate.
"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”?"
Briefly, you're conflating the formulation with the content. Shapiro, as far as I can tell, doesn't maintain that the Rambam disowned anything about the ikkarim. His point is that they don't show up as unit anywhere near as cohesively as they do in his pirush hamishna. And he points out what he sees as the ironic fact that the former has become the 'catechism." How many people say the yud gimmel ikkarim daily? A lot. How many peolple read perek gimmel of hilchos teshuva daily? Probably none. (See pages 14-19 of Limits at length.)
Your misunderstanding of Shapiro's objective is too fundamental to be resolved in this comment section. We're talking about two different Marc Shapiros who wrote two different books. Your guy sounds like he might be ok; my review here is talking about the other Shapiro.
Just out of curiosity - in your Shapiro's book, how does the statement "in abarbanel's mind only limited attention should be paid to the ikkurim and it certainly be wrong to draw conclusions about maimonide's theological views from a text designed for beginners" fit into making that point?
"Your misunderstanding of Shapiro's objective is to fundamental to be resolved in this comment section. "
I'm eagerly awaiting your explication of what his true objective is. I do hope you'll provide some actual quotes from him while doing so. Not some paraphrase of three lines with a bunch of ellipses thrown in.
"Your guy sounds like he might be ok; my review here is talking about the other Shapiro."
Oh, okay. Whatever. I suppose you have your own esoteric reading of Shapiro. Like when he says "Readers can compare Grossman’s arguments with my replies and draw their own judgment", he's *really* just trying to "maintain the perfect tone of above-the-fray disinterested academic together with wounded persecuted innocent, all while totally lambasting his opponent."
"Just out of curiosity"
I'm not here to satisfy your curiosity. I've spent enough time on this already. I've said my piece.
"I'm eagerly awaiting your explication of what his true objective is. I do hope you'll provide some actual quotes from him while doing so."
Ok, here's one for starters: "in abarbanel's mind only limited attention should be paid to the ikkurim and it certainly be wrong to draw conclusions about maimonide's theological views from a text designed for beginners".
This explains why he did not list these principles in the Guide, in which he investigated deeply into the faith of the Torah, but mentioned them rather in his Commentary on the Mishnah, which he wrote in his youth. He postulated the principles for the masses, and for beginners in the study of Mishnah, but not for those individuals who plumbed the knowledge of truth for whom he wrote the Guide.
"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."
The biggest issue I have with Rabbi Grossman are that his insults crowd out everything he might have to say. (See quote at bottom) And it doesn't make it easier to follow what's actually going on. Also, it isn't Shapiro's fault that R Grossman chose to show up 20+ years after the book was published and write a review in a journal which seems to go into extended periods of hibernation. All while neglecting to cite to the previous 20 years of analysis/ critiques of Dr Shapiro.
You have to comb through pages and pages of academic bashing about how "The academic approach to matters of Torah learning is radically different
from that of the talmid chochom. A talmid chochom. sits, as it were, at the feet of
the earlier commentators, with the clear assumption that the earlier commentators were fluent in every part of the Talmud and understood it better than he
does. If a difficulty or inconsistency in the words of the earlier authorities presents itself, the talmid chochom assumes that the fault is with him, the student,
not with the master, and that it is incumbent upon him to make every effort to
justify the words of the master.
On the other hand, many academics build their reputations on discrediting
previously accepted theories. When an apparent inconsistency in the writings of
the earlier authority presents itself, these academics rush to conclude that either
the master erred, or that he invented an idea for personal, historical or political
reasons. Interpretations of difficulties in the writings of earlier authorities offered
by world-class Talmudic scholars throughout the ages are cavalierly dismissed as
“obviously incorrect,” “forced” or “re-interpretations.” Though these judgments
are often made without proof, this academic poses as the ultimate authority, with
sufficient wisdom to dismiss or accept anything in his purview.
In short, for the talmid chochom, a difficulty in the words of the authority
creates a challenge for him to discover the true meaning of the authority. For
many academics, a difficulty is proof that the authority is wrong.
Professor Marc Shapiro’s The Limits of Orthodox Theology: Maimonides’
Thirteen Principles Reappraised is an example of this sort of scholarship. The
book is a study of the Thirteen Principles of Jewish faith by the Rambam. Its
thrust is that the Rambam erred in codifying these Principles and it “takes issue
with the widespread assumption that Maimonides’ famous Thirteen Principles
are the last word in Orthodox Jewish theology.”2
While some earlier scholars
have disputed whether some of the Principles deserve to be listed as basic to
Judaism but have all conceded that the tenets expressed by the Principles are
correct, Shapiro goes further and purports to demonstrate that, in traditional
Jewish sources, many “scholars … thought that Maimonides’ Principles were
wrong, pure and simple."... In his lengthy introduction, Shapiro states that he is following in the footsteps of Louis Jacobs and Menachem Kellner,4
academic scholars whose prior
elucidations of Maimonides’ Principles have challenged the prevailing notions
in the traditional community.
Kellner believes that academics, including himself, understand the Rambam
better than world-famous Torah authorities. In his words:
My colleagues and I, academic Rambam scholars, despite the disputes
among us, understand the Rambam better than people like Rebbe Elchanan
Wasserman. The Rambam is among the few individuals about whom it can
be said that if he has adopted a certain position, that position is now “kasher”
from a Torah perspective. From this we can conclude that my colleagues
and I understand one Torah perspective better than Reb Elchanan and his
colleagues, the contemporary Roshei Yeshiva.5
Shapiro, who mocks the opinions of Rabbeynu Nissim,6
R. Moshe
Feinstein,7
Chazon Ish,8
Arizal9
and R. Ya’akov Emden,10 among others,
goes one step beyond Kellner in his belief that he, Shapiro, is better able than
Rambam to interpret explicit verses of the Torah (as we shall see below).
Shapiro does not refrain from adducing explicit Talmudic passages as
contradictions to the Rambam, presuming that the Rambam overlooked
or ignored them, something which innumerable Talmudic scholars in past "
=========
And then to come back and claim that Shapiro is the one with preconceived conclusions? Please.
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.
Wouldn’t it be more persuasive to explain why you find a point raised on this post “a hatchet job” rather than running straight to other points some of which he has said he agrees with?
I doubt it. There doesn't seem to be much of an interest in actual debate on the merits. In any case, I'm not here to claim Dr Shapiro is right about everything or most things. I just find it distasteful and dishonest to slander a scholar who did his homework.
"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.
“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.“
Doesn’t sound like you read the Grossmans article at all. Maybe read it patiently before you comment on it’s contents.
Lou, email me, and I'll tell you what he's talking about if you're interested. He still didn't figure out what else "yichud" means, and I don't want to tell him just yet!
It's like the guy who doesn't know English and thinks that "bark" only means something a dog does, and at every opportunity he mentions this crazy guy who talked about tree bark...
Gosh, why do you have such a strange crazy obsession with this post? What are you going to do next? Make it into a cookbook? Write it on the back of a red herring and hang it on a wall?
Me: Write a funny story about a fictional guy named Shaul Shapira who read a substack post named The Art of the Rebuttal, Part 1, about Dr. Marc Shapiro's rebuttal on Rabbi Herschel Grossman's response to him about the 13 ikkarim and became so disturbed by it that he obsessively read it over and over again, and dropped endless comments, most not making too much sense, and refusing to accept any mistakes that he made. He ended up running out of ideas and feeding the post through ChatGPT and asking it to create funny variations of it and posting it in the comments. He gave off a very unbalanced and disturbed impression.
ChatGPT: Once upon a time in the bustling town of Banterville, there lived a peculiar fellow named Shaul Shapira. Shaul had a penchant for the eccentric and a boundless curiosity that often led him down unusual paths. One fateful day, as he perused the depths of the internet, he stumbled upon a thought-provoking Substack post that would turn his world upside down.
The post in question was titled "The Art of the Rebuttal, Part 1: Dr. Marc Shapiro's Epic Response to Rabbi Herschel Grossman's Musings on the 13 Ikkarim." It delved into the intricacies of a scholarly debate between the esteemed Dr. Shapiro and Rabbi Grossman, revolving around the sacred concept of the 13 fundamental principles of faith.
Shaul, being the inquisitive soul that he was, found himself irresistibly drawn into the intellectual battleground of ideas. He devoured the post once, twice, thrice, and then endlessly on repeat, his mind intoxicated by the intellectual sparring.
However, as Shaul immersed himself deeper into the post, his fascination took a peculiar turn. He became obsessed with the minutiae, dissecting every sentence, every argument, and every subtle nuance with a fervor bordering on the fanatical. He couldn't help himself but to drop endless comments on the post, each one more convoluted than the last.
"I must express my utmost admiration for Dr. Shapiro's unparalleled eloquence in dismantling Rabbi Grossman's response," he typed feverishly, his fingers dancing across the keyboard. "It's as if he wields the power of a thousand scholarly swords, slicing through fallacies with the precision of a laser-guided logic beam!"
Shaul's comments became a cacophony of ramblings, a never-ending symphony of confusion. He obstinately refused to acknowledge any errors he made, instead doubling down on his convoluted statements. "Surely, Rabbi Grossman's use of the term 'epistemological quagmire' is a subtle nod to the philosophical debates of the ancient Greeks," he mused, despite the concept being entirely unrelated to the discussion at hand.
As Shaul's imagination ran dry, he found himself in a predicament. How could he continue commenting without any fresh insights? That's when he hatched a peculiar plan. He decided to turn to his trusted companion, ChatGPT, the AI language model, in a desperate attempt to conjure amusing variations of the post and inject some much-needed levity into his comments.
Shaul's comments transformed into a whirlwind of absurdity. "What if Dr. Shapiro and Rabbi Grossman engaged in a rap battle of theological proportions, dropping rhymes about the 13 ikkarim?" he suggested, the image of two esteemed scholars donning oversized gold chains and unleashing verbal fireworks dancing in his mind. "Or perhaps they could settle their differences in a grand chess match, with each move representing a theological argument. Checkmate, theological dissent!"
The Substack community oscillated between bemusement and concern as they witnessed Shaul's unbalanced and disturbed persona unfold before their eyes. Some found his antics amusing, a momentary diversion from the weightiness of the scholarly debate, while others worried about the state of his sanity.
And so, dear reader, the tale of Shaul Shapira, the man who read a Substack post and spiraled into an obsession with the art of the rebuttal, draws to a close. In the realm of intellectual pursuits, even the most serious debates can give birth to moments of levity and madness. It is within these realms that curious souls like Shaul find themselves, teetering on the edge between enlightenment and eccentricity.
Not bad, though you kind of stacked the deck by *telling* it that I'm unbalanced, don't make much sense etc. Which is fine. Just noting that I simply fed it mecharker's posts as is and let it go to work. If you could get chatGPT to conclude that I'm unbalanced based on my own comments, I'd be more impressed.
ChatGPT thinks that this is Talmudic style for some reason:
Verily, why dost thou harbor such a peculiar and frenzied preoccupation with this proclamation? Pray tell, what shall be thy future course of action? Shall thou fashion it into a tome of culinary instructions? Or inscribe it upon the dorsal side of a red herring, only to suspend it upon a wall?
One or two off-topic poems would have been fine. But I so far removed 9 of them! Notice I left up all your comments, which have substance. We even allow trolls like "test" to post here. Please have some self control!
Kidding. You can delete whatever you like. Doesn't bother me at all. I posted my stuff after it seemed clear to me that there wasn't much else happening in this veritable torah bastion of a comment section. And I figured that the internet isn't exactly running out of space.
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 🤷
Random example of gross misrepresentation in this article you linked:
https://seforimblog.com/2016/01/the-agunah-problem-part-1-incarceration/
“I think most people will still be troubled reading the following words from R. Grodzinski, from which we see that he saw no problem in condemning her to live the rest of her life without receiving a get”
This is bodem with klutz. R. Grodzinsky is quoting word for word the lashon of a tshevos harash as he attempts to ascertain if it’s logic would apply in his case. It’s completely bizarre to pretend there is any inference whether or not R. Grodzinsky personally “had a problem condemning her”.
He also defends triangle treif, and weirdly mixes it up with OUD.
https://forward.com/opinion/1074/glatt-kosher-meat-is-not-all-it-is/
Here's an important one
https://academic.oup.com/mj/article-abstract/37/2/165/3789884
Thanks, that was cited in the CC article I quoted. Is there any link to an unpaywalled copy?
https://www.academia.edu/61794537/_Is_Modern_Orthodoxy_Moving_Towards_an_Acceptance_of_Biblical_Criticism_Modern_Judaism_37_May_2017_pp_1_29
https://pixeldrain.com/u/1cxaH7TW
"He is an apologist for open orthodoxy https://seforimblog.com/2016/02/open-orthodoxy-and-its-main-critic-par/ "
No he's not. He replied in the comments to that very CC post.
https://cross-currents.com/2016/02/09/response-to-dr-marc-shapiro-good-shot-but-wrong-target/#comment-472921
"As I said already, I have no problem with criticism of OO and no one has ever mistaken me for an adherent of OO. But I believe in fair play and giving credit where credit is due. I also regret writing my piece since people’s opinions are so strongly held on this matter that it is hard to have real dialogue and try to understand the other side."
I thank Rabbi Gordimer for responding in a respectful manner."
https://cross-currents.com/2016/02/09/response-to-dr-marc-shapiro-good-shot-but-wrong-target/#comment-472925
"As you say, I am a professor, not a posek. I cannot speak about the halakhic legitimacy of reforms. If people want I would be happy to explain why e.g., I am opposed to Partnership Minyanim, seeing them as a real divergence from traditional Judaism. But I have done that in the past, before large audiences. Before large audiences I have discussed what I find problematic in Orthodox feminism (and I have mentioned on numerous occasions how years ago JOFA didn’t let me speak at its convention). Before large audiences I have also discussed the significance of Open Orthodoxy. None of this is news to people who know my writings and have heard my lectures or participated in my online classes."
That is called being an apologist. What would you say about somebody who would write adoring articles about all the good Chaim Walder has done (which would be accurate)?
If they also noted that he's molester who destroyed lives? I'm not entirely sure what I would say. ערבך ערבא צריך
But it's not a great comparison anyhow. Shapiro is discussing ideas. Ideas which are freely available to anyone with a computer mouse. Ideas which people are free to dispute, reject, or write nasty and sarcastic articles in a journal about. My understanding is that Walder's victims were in a somewhat more vulnerable position.
Let's say they wrote an article exactly like Shapiro did, criticizing people who only have criticism for Chaim Walder. And writing a disclaimer that "I have no problem with people who criticize Chaim Walder, as long as there are no personal attacks". But Chaim Walder has also done many good and wonderful things, etc, etc. I don't know about you but I'm pretty certain most people would be outraged. What Shapiro wrote was outrageous and terrible.
A. One problem is that in many posts on his blog he does write as if he is a posek.
B. "Open Orthodoxy" is כפירה בנצחיות התורה and anyone who does not understand this (or worse, lies about it) has no היתר אם write about it.
And it should be noted that Rabbi Gordimer himself expressed appreciation for Dr Shapiro's civility.
https://cross-currents.com/2016/02/10/how-to-disagree-my-exchange-with-dr-marc-shapiro/
"I anticipated a prolonged and unpleasant back-and-forth, which would be fruitless and only cause more strife.
But last evening, when I finally again got to my email, rays of light were shining, for Dr. Shapiro had sent several kind comments and messages clarifying that the issues were not personal, graciously (and unnecessarily) apologizing for any hard feelings, and also explaining his work and his goals. I apologized for any overstatement of his identification with controversial views, and we proceeded to share our hopes that our public exchange not be perceived as reflective of any type of sinah or personal affront. Our exchange was about ideas only. My communications with Dr. Shapiro were really refreshing.
....
But even when dealing with controversy, and even when the discourse is heated, let it not be perceived as sinah or personal clash. It is about ideas only. My exchange with Dr. Shapiro, and his kind and classy reaching out to clarify, are a deep lesson to all."
Marc Shapiro, always the genial, civil, stick-to-the-issues gentleman, on Rabbi Gordimer:
"This obsession with the Open Orthodox reminds me of how in earlier centuries Christian zealots “could declare themselves ‘crusaders’, join a company of St. Peter Martyr, and assume a special responsibility for denouncing suspicious behavior to the Holy Office.”"
"It appears to me, and many others, that all of Rabbi Gordimer’s attacks are pretty meaningless by now, as we get it, he doesn’t like Open Orthodoxy and he thinks that they are not “Orthodox” (a Christian term which perhaps it is time to jettison). Simply drumming this point continuously is not going to make it any clearer."
"As mentioned, he will spend hours and hours reading their material until he finally hits pay dirt. We are never told about any of the good things he sees in the writers he so often attacks, and how 99% of what he reads in their writings is not objectionable."
"Rabbi Avrohom Gordimer, who has assumed the mantle of defender of the faith. He sees his goal as exposing the non-Orthodox nature of Open Orthodoxy, and has spent many hundreds of hours reading everything written by Open Orthodox figures (and their spouses), looking for a problematic sentence in order to pounce on them."
"I realize he doesn’t respect these figures, but to even deny them the simple courtesy of mentioning their names, as if to do so is muktzeh mehamat mius, is in my opinion simply disgraceful (albeit a common writing style in the haredi world)."
https://seforimblog.com/2016/02/open-orthodoxy-and-its-main-critic-par/
I already posted the follow up to that exchange. See above.
If you can explain how Gordimer's mentchlichkeit makes these makes these comments by Shapiro less gratuitously abrasive, I'd appreciate it.
A. Civility is not a substitue for אמת
B. Prof. MS has written some very uncivil things in his blog over the years
A. Nobody claimed it was.
B. Then he deserves to be called out for those things.
A. Wonderful, so we are in agreement that there was no reason to bring it up.
B. Exactly
Curious what those were.
Even the post about R. Gordimer (linked above) was very vicious and uncivil.
I recall reading an extremely pernicious attack on R. Kahana hy"d
"Partnership minyanim https://seforimblog.com/tag/marc-b-shapiro/page/14/?print=print-search"
"There are good reasons people can offer in opposition to Partnership Minyanim without falling into the “pan-halakhic” trap that everything you oppose has to be shown to be halakhically improper.... But as mentioned already, lack of a prohibition doesn’t necessarily make something a good idea. Plenty of synagogues will not let someone serve as a hazan if he is wearing jeans (or if he is not wearing a jacket or hat), yet this doesn’t mean that we need to find a technical halakhic objection for something which is at essence a matter of synagogue custom and propriety, and therefore does not need to be supported by halakhic sources. By the same token, I think we have reached the point whereby the typical Orthodox rabbi acknowledges (privately, at least) that there is no real halakhic objection to a woman rabbi, while at the same time continuing to oppose the concept (much like many oppose yoatzot halakhah). They oppose it because of how women rabbis will change the structure of traditional Judaism, change it in way they view as negative. This point can be made without using halakhic arguments that after a little investigation people will see don’t carry any weight. This is especially so in the Modern Orthodox world where there are women principals of Jewish day school, women synagogue presidents, women teachers of Talmud, women learning advanced halakhah, and no one bats an eye when a woman speaks in front of men.
For those who oppose things like women leading Kabbalat Shabbat, a weak halakhic argument is worse than no argument at all. The best tactic for the opponents is simply to keep the issue focused on what direction is best for Judaism. It is known that a number of great rabbis refused to provide halakhic reasons for particular decisions they gave, especially when the halakhic justification was weak. They chose this path precisely because they didn’t want these issues to become matters of halakhic debate, as there were other, even more important considerations guiding them."
"See this https://cross-currents.com/2017/05/21/changing-mind-modern-orthodoxy/ "
No idea what you see there. Rabbi Gordimer quoted Dr Shapiro's research on the current state of affairs. There wasn't any advocacy on Dr Shapiro's part.
Someone who defends the concept of women "rabbis" and the whole feminist שגעון, as halakhically valid, and only a matter of structural issues, is either a עם הארץ גמור or a רשע
"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."
Can you clarify what that's supposed to mean? Are you saying that if someone is "a malicious figure who is an enemy of the Torah" they deserve to be slandered and have claims attributed to them which they never made? Sounds like the justification for rewriting history.....which he has a book about too.
https://www.amazon.com/Changing-Immutable-Orthodox-Judaism-Rewrites/dp/1904113605/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8
No, of course not slander. Nothing RT wrote here is slander. They deserve to have their misdeeds exposed and mocked.
His book is succinctly summed up by Sochasascewski here:
“In his more recent work, Changing the Immutable: How Orthodox Judaism Rewrites Its History (Portland: Littman Library, 2015), pp. 25-26, Maimonides' alleged contrivances are woven into a broader tapestry of not infrequent misrepresentation by Torah scholars throughout the ages for a variety of goals.
While an analysis of that work is beyond the scope of this essay, for the moment, I would note the fol- lowing: All the examples cited by Shapiro relating to misrepresentation of Torah (which isn't the subject of the majority of the book) can be included in one or more of the following categories: a) the claim of misrepresentation is ambigu- ous, as Shapiro's source can plausibly be understood in an alternative fashion; b) the perpetrator isn't one of the gedolei ba-dor, rather a mediocre scholar or layman; c) the misrepresentation has no practical bearing on the subject; d) the agent is of the view that the item he is suppressing or misrepresenting is incor- rect or does not reflect the final halakhah and thus deserves to be suppressed or misrepresented; e) the misrepresentation was made temporarily for some con- structive purpose and was thereafter corrected; f) it was directed to an individual, a group, or even the unlearned masses to accomplish specific halakhically-man- dated goals, while the authentic teachings were accurately preserved for posterity within the academy and accessible to any serious student. The upshot of all this is that Shapiro's research does not seem to yield a single unambiguous instance of the following significant category: willful distortion for posterity of the historical body of Jewish tradition at the hands of one of its custodians, the gedolei ba-dorot.
By contrast, this is exactly what Shapiro attributes to Maimonides.”
"His book is succinctly summed up by Sochasascewski here:"
Nonsense. Did you even read the quote before copying and pasting it? What part of "an analysis of that work is beyond the scope of this essay, " did you not get?
Lol we are still waiting for you to explain the relevance of the part of the response you copied and pasted from Shapiro to this post, and you cry about a world choice of “summed up” when it isn’t a full fledged analysis 😂
"we are still waiting for you to explain the relevance of the part of the response'
I see. Very anti-climactic and whatnot.
" and you cry about a world choice of “summed up” when it isn’t a full fledged analysis 😂"
Yes, I'm crying. And deeply impatient. You nailed me the way R Grossman's nailed Dr Shapiro. Completely accurate and sober portrayals. The "academics" must be terrified. They're being completely exposed, emojis and all.
From that same essay:
"Dr. Marc Shapiro is renowned within the world of Jewish academic scholarship for his important contributions to the field of Jewish intellectual
history. His meticulous and indefatigable research, shared in his celebrated books and widely followed online classes and postings, regularly
yields fascinating discoveries from obscure corners of Torah literature and
Jewish history. Significantly, his work has captured the interest of those
beyond the walls of academia, popularizing awareness of nuance and development within Judaism that often goes unnoticed.
....
"As this essay was nearing completion, two reviews of such nature surprisingly
materialized: Phillips, Judaism, pp. 67-84, and Herschel Grossman, “The Limits
of Academic Criticism,” Dialogue 8 (Fall 2019), pp. 35-83. The former focuses
on the third chapter of Limits, which is not the subject of the current essay. The
latter critiques various points throughout the book. Rabbi Grossman makes several important observations about particular items in Shapiro’s research, and I
second his call for greater appreciation of the traditional assumptions and attitudes regarding dogma. However, at times he seems to display ignorance of the
subject matters (e.g., see further in this essay, fn. 49, 50) and fails to appreciate
the very real problems Shapiro addresses (such as the implications of Guide 2:25;
see later in this essay). On occasion, Grossman appears to completely misread
Shapiro (e.g., Grossman, p. 54, where it’s clear that Shapiro is adducing evidence
from the philosopher quoted by Rivash, and not from Rivash himself). Furthermore, Grossman adopts the approach of extreme harmonization, in which the
positions of all Torah authorities are axiomatically presumed consistent with one
another, even when sound judgment dictates otherwise. For example, Shapiro’s
observations about later authorities departing from Maimonides’ positions and
these authorities’ unfamiliarity with medieval philosophy—which is obvious to
any educated reader—are described by Grossman (p. 37) as making a mockery
of them."
Did you read this post?
“In several instances – four by my count – Shapiro is essentially correct in his responses; Grossman misread a source, or misspoke in making a point.”
Yes. the post:
"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."
Sochasascewski: "Dr. Marc Shapiro is renowned within the world of Jewish academic scholarship for his important contributions to the field of Jewish intellectual history. His meticulous and indefatigable research, shared in his celebrated books and widely followed online classes and postings, regularly yields fascinating discoveries from obscure corners of Torah literature and Jewish history."
Ooh. I should clarify that I was focusing on the תוכן of the argument.
Yes it is clear that RT prefers a sharper tone than Sochasascewski.
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.
I see 2a alot. In this very discussion- Who the heck is Rav Chaim Sofer, Rav Pesach Finfer, Rav Avraham Pessin, Yeshayahu Maori?? I mean, I'm sure they were talmidei chachamim and scholars, but who said these random people's opinion on the ikkarei emunah means anything?? Oh yeah, I'll find some random rabbi who wrote in a sefer that Moshiach came yesterday. Amazing, I just proved the ikkarei emunah are not universally accepted!
That's true, and has been noted by many people prior to Rabbi Grossman. In fairness to Dr Shapiro, he's not claiming they're authoritative (whatever that might even mean in this context.)
But I personally thought his book was overkill. His original article was long enough and made all of his central points, as far as I can tell.
http://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/704648/The_Last_Word_in_Jewish_Theology
That's not true. Aside from misquoting and misrepresenting classic sources, he brings from every Tom, Dick, and Harry to try to build a "consensus" that the 13 Ikkarim were not accepted. As an aside, I just so happen to be acquainted with one of the sources that Shapiro brings. The fellow was not at all considered an authority by any means - I don't think people would even bother saying over a simple psak halacha from him. And certainly not on weighty issues such as the 13 ikkarim. The fact that Shapiro brings the guy as a 'proof' to support his position is pretty ridiculous!
Citing non authoritative writers means nothing. If a writer is not an authority, his writings are dismissed out of hand. If the pope were to write a commentary on the chumash, I think you would agree, that we don't need to take it seriously, and we would dismiss it out of hand. Citing an unknown, hitherto unpublished manuscript, means nothing. It can be dismissed out of hand. All the more so when Shapiro is making controversial claims, unknown and unpublished authors are not valid sources.
I would not put Rav Chaim Sofer in the same category as the others. Regardless, there is nothing significant to see from what he says, none withstanding the admittedly misrepresentation by Grossman.
"The academics are so full of themselves, that they will never admit to a mistake by one of their own."
https://hakirah.org/Vol%208%20Shapiro.pdf
"Buchman’s efforts are designed to show that the very evidence
I put forth can yield different conclusions. He argues his case with
much conviction and I must thank him for correcting some careless
errors of mine, for pointing out a few nuances that I missed, and for
causing me to think again about some of my points, which no longer
appear so certain after reading his critique. "
...
"Buchman, p. 129, is correct that I mistakenly listed a halakhah in
Hilkhot Talmud Torah before a halakhah in Hilkhot Deot. In reality, the
order should be reversed. I thank him for pointing out this error,
which only shows that we all make careless mistakes. "
"The academics are so full of themselves, that they will never admit to a mistake by one of their own."
https://seforimblog.com/2007/09/marc-shapiro-what-do-adon-olam-and-mean/#:~:text=Artscroll%20did%20what,make%20simple%20errors.
"Artscroll did what everyone should do when an error is brought to their attention, namely, correct it in a future edition.... In fact, this is a good lesson to all of us, because if Artscroll, whose writers are big talmidei hakhamim, could make such a simple mistake, then all of us should realize that we too can make simple errors."
Dr Shapiro corrects himself all the time, and I find him intellectually honest in that regard. That being said it’s all the more concerning that, say for example, he refuses to concede that he completely botched the Magid Mishna. This indicates he earnestly believes his egregiously mistaken interpretation of it, which to me is equally concerning.
Let me explain what I meant, as I was not clear in my original post. In the link you sent, Shapiro assumed a certain translation for the phrase in Adon Olam. Apparently he gets a high out of showing off to people where Artscroll made a mistake, their mistake being that they did not agree to Shapiro's translation. Shapiro then found a citation from a Rav who agrees with Artscroll, and retracted their 'mistake'. Such a backtrack was not what I was referring to.
In the other article of Shapiro's that I read, he clearly misquotes sources. Since his agenda, that of making the Torah observant Leadership look bad, is one the academics support, such an article is automatically given a 5 star review. SHapiro botching sources in bad enough, when other academics applaud articles with clearly botched sources, that speaks lowly of their supposed scholarship. I do not know if 'the academics' had what to say about Shapiro's article that I read, but it is the general attitude that I refer to.
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.
Thanks.
I think it's important to point out how convincing his article is. In fact, I'd encourage people to read Shapiro's piece BEFORE reading our analysis just to see what kind of impression it makes on you.
My main purpose is to recognize that disconnect between how convincing his writings come across and how vacuous they really are. Hopefully when we see it spelled out enough times we'll either be able to spot the sleights more easily, or at the very least be wise enough to disregard him.
Well, I looked and saw this had 38 comments and had just been posted, so I couldn't help but jump 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.
My concern here is not so much Shapiro's thesis but his tactics, and the general implications on his scholarship. I do hope to make some closing comments on the actual thesis when we finish going through the whole response. But that's some time away.
The most damning part is already there - that he canno admit he made a mistake or two. Which is fine, we all do. Just admit it!
This may be a true generalization, but there are numerous points to be debated on the way.
For example, I may not agree with Grossmans overall viewpoint, but he sure as anything obliterated the claim that there is anything to see in the Rambam in hilchos geirus, and aptly showed how comical it was for Kelner to claim he has a better understanding of the Rambam than Rav Elchonan, and proceeds to build a בנין based on his understanding that the Rambam added אין מאריכים עמו, failing to realize it’s an explicit Gemara.
Agreed. See also here:
http://download.yutorah.org/2005/918/709863.pdf
" Shapiro has
brought enough material from recognized authorities to prove his thesis
denying that Rambam’s principles represent the final word in Jewish
theology. At the same time, as Shapiro himself acknowledges, and as we
have argued above, dogma remains an integral aspect of Judaism....
Even taking these factors into consideration, they do not lead to the dissolution of dogma. We can allow flexibility up to the point when certain fundamentals are abandoned.
Judaism resembles a structure with much leeway on most floors but an
inflexible foundation at the ground level. Shapiro deserves credit for
showing that that Rambam did not precisely identify the foundation.
Nevertheless, the foundation continues to exist.
Here too:
https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/8/article/172772/pdf?casa_token=6zR2zx3Tb3YAAAAA:Bzu1gP8QQ5g5qfdeQoqy2otiueHXQ8rTQZIRA8Iv7gvrf6W_J78CKhF3cSS7dv9-dZgSZ0aRbt3J
"... before we begin I see a need to address a methodological
issue. Every communicator, when deciding how best to present a topic,
needs to consider the intended audience and frame his comments
appropriately. Shapiro begins his book discussing the arguments of
R. Yehuda Parnes, a traditional Talmudist, and then proceeds to argue
not with a Talmudist but with an academic. Many of the positions
that Shapiro cites throughout the book are irrelevant to a traditional
scholar. Thus, for example, the argument that many rabbis of the
Talmudic period believed in a corporeal God would be dismissed by
a traditional Talmudist with a mere wave of the hand.11 Similarly,
the debatable claim that R. Avraham Ibn Ezra believed in Creation
from preexisting matter would also be rejected.12 Indeed, a good
deal of the book is based on disputed academic interpretations, as
duly noted by Shapiro, and the traditional scholar is certain to set
aside such speculative arguments, many of them quite radical, as
more fantasy than fact. Shapiro would have done well to separate
and emphasize the sources that have validity in the Bet Midrash
because, as the book stands, it proves little to the traditional Talmudist.
Furthermore, though for an academic scholar Shapiro is remarkably
open to the wide literature of traditional rabbinic writings, to the
traditional Talmudist Shapiro demonstrates a subtle but persistent
lack of proper respect to the authorities he cites. This is certainly
off-putting to the traditional Talmudist. To the academic scholar,
however, Shapiro raises a great many interesting issues that will
certainly continue to be debated for years to come.
....
It is quite apparent that, barring claims that medieval rabbis rewrote
our religion, Judaism is a faith in which certain beliefs are obligatory
and binding. The evidence is readily apparent and quite abundant.
Indeed, there are clear statements throughout the halachic literature
that there are mandatory beliefs—according to some, commandments
and, according to others, obligations more fundamental—not least of
which is Maimonides’ list of the thirteen fundamental principles of
Judaism. Shapiro already agrees to this.
"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?
If it has been demonstrated to be wrong on some matters, which he has, then yes, defending a clearly demonstrated mistake of his isn’t such a good thing.
Wouldn’t you agree?
No, I don't agree. R Grossman CLAIMING that he's demonstrated x doesn't make it so. That's not how things work.
It might be more helpful to your case if you actually discuss the content of the arguments, because those that agree with Grossman wouldn’t say he’s CLAIMING rather they would say he DEMONSTRATED.
"It might be more helpful to your case...."
My case doesn't need to be helped. I said my piece. ve'idach zil gemor.
"those that agree with Grossman wouldn’t say he’s CLAIMING rather they would say he DEMONSTRATED."
Right. Those who agree with the claim that it's been demonstrated will agree that it's correct to claim that it's been demonstrated. And they can demonstrate that they claim that by claiming that.
We can do this all day, I suppose.
“I said my piece. ve'idach zil gemor.”
Just so we are keeping track, “your piece” thus far consists of a nonsensical reference to a response of Shapiro which you think refutes a point RT made in a footnote, and a whole lot of whining about how Dr Shapiro is being treated.
A bit anticlimactic for someone claiming this post is a hatchet job.
"Just so we are keeping track,"
I'm glad you're keeping track. Of whatever it is you're tracking.
"a nonsensical reference"
It's only nonsensical if you suppose that Rabbi Grossman and Mecharker actually demonstrated all of those things which you claimed he demonstrated. See above.
"RT made in a footnote"
I responded to several things in the body of the article too. See above
"A bit anticlimactic for someone claiming this post is a hatchet job."
I'm not sure what you were expecting. I commented on a substack article. I didn't announce anything which, could, would, or should have a climax.
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.
This is me, no AI involved. Do we still get credit for that, or are those days over?
Gather 'round children and you will hear,
Of the late-night exploits of old Shaul Shapir,
He shared a last name with a great intellect,
Who was known far and wide for his skill at deflect.
Shaul supported his namesake through thin and through thick,
Hoping the critiques that were said wouldn't stick,
Now most of his defenses were not very great,
(Hey just sharing opinions, I don't mean no hate)
But when logic fell flat and svaros were nigh,
We can always argue by heaving a sigh,
And saying I hear but why can't you be more kind,
As you explain how my hero is plumb out of his mind,
I mean let's be more civil, as we parry and thrust,
And show your opponent's views to be dust,
Never mind that my guy acts like a jerk all the time,
He acts that way NICELY, that hero of mine,
And though he promotes to reject divine truths,
That is no reason to become all uncouth,
So accept him and say "we can all be good friends,
Though your ideas drive folk 'round dangerous bends".
Cuz after all, it comes down to behaviour,
Not which particular guy you believe is the saviour.
Ah bi gezunt.
This deserves a seperate post.
And this is my own written lyrics.
כד יתבין ישראל ומרתחין בשטותא דבלוגא
קודשא בריך הוא אומר לפלמליא דיליה
חזו בני טפשאי
דמשתכחין בתורה דילי
ועסקין בחדוותא דקנאותא דלהון
Good Yom Tov.
"for the general lessons it teaches about your mindset, which I believe puts many things into perspective about your arguments in general."
Oh my, *more* methodology????
"If you'll count, you'll see that I dropped a total of five comments on this thread yesterday."
I wasn't counting. I rely on your detailed box scores about who got what right, along with your learned assessments about what's been 'Correctly responded' to versus
'Ignored' 'Obfuscated through' and 'Reengineered'. Then I wait for your insightful analysis about what that says about someone's whose 'authority comes more from his ability to fudge than to learn." After all, "It’s important to constantly remind ourselves of this."
"If you must know, during that intervening time I said two shiurim, chazered 9 blat gemara, "
I know, we all know. You've repeatedly demonstrated your complete mastery of shas, poskim, and analysis of academic Rebuttalism. Why, just look at all of the endless chidushei torah you've shared about...well, about.....
Ashrei ha'am.
"and celebrated a siyum. "
Mazel Tov!
"During that same period, you were commenting and posting nonstop, as you had been for the previous 24 hours, culminating in an impressive display of lack of a life with your repeated artificial intelligence generated inanities."
I won't disagree with any of that.
"This may also shed light on the oddity of someone who's been an active blog creature since at least 2014 dropping repeated condescending comments about the silly substack users..."
Wait, how did you get my postings from 2014 on your t9 flip phone?
"Why am I pointing all this out? Because I think you'll find that many of your gripes about me and my style begin to make a lot more sense when we read them through the perspective of your penchant for projecting your and your hero's faults onto others."
Maybe. Alternatively, maybe you tend to indulge in a whole lot of psycho-babble about what various people really mean about what they say, what's 'sly subterfuge,' and so on, and on, and on. If you've noticed, I try to engage respectfully when someone makes a substantive argument. But it's impossible to have a discussion with people who refuse to engage on the matter at hand. If my misunderstandings of Shapiro are so fundamental, prove it. Quote him, quote me, and and show what I've misunderstood. Genuk shoyn with the endless ploppling about nothing. Show receipts already. As someone once said: "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.'
Gut yom-tov.
After all your comments, I still don't see your problem with RT's post. He made it very clear that the intention of this analysis was to criticize Shapiro, not engage in a totally unbiased both-sides treatment of the issue. He didn't attempt to hide his biases. And he showed a few places where Shapiro was wrong. I still don't get your problem with the Abarbanel (based on the paragraph that was quoted in Shapiro's Final Response, as I said, I didn't see the book inside). Do you agree with RT about the Radvaz?
There's a playbook on this.
First, you accuse the guy of slander. Terms like kanoi, pashkivil, knee jerk reactionary are popular.
Then you say nuh uh.
Then you sigh mightily and wonder aloud why this guy can't just stick to the substance.
You'll notice that he came out of the gate kvetching about the gratuitous attack on Shapiro, and thus far after probably over a hundred comments, he has not yet given a single example of something in the main critiques of Shapiro that he can find a hole in.
But he's good at the rap stuff.
I'm blown away by the substance.
"After all your comments, I still don't see your problem with RT's post."
My earlier comments were about that.
"I still don't get your problem with the Abarbanel."
The problem is that despite saying "Grossman basically says, ok point taken." RT then continues ignoring said point.
Let's start here: What was the Abarbanel actually saying in the quote which Shapiro provided?
"Do you agree with RT about the Radvaz?"
No. At least, not as some sort of attempt to reverse engineer the source which cited him.
"And he showed a few places where Shapiro was wrong."
No he didn't.
"If you've noticed, I try to engage respectfully when someone makes a substantive argument. But it's impossible to have a discussion with people who refuse to engage on the matter at hand. If my misunderstandings of Shapiro are so fundamental, prove it. Quote him, quote me, and and show what I've misunderstood."
I have the greatest respect for people like Lou who have the patience and computer access to engage in endless circular conversations with you about basics that every bar bei rav can see is infantile, but that you unfortunately fell for Shapiro's academic credentials and self-assured tone about.
Alas, I have neither. And when your starting point is that Shapiro saying that "in Abarbanel's mind little attention should be paid and we shouldn't draw conclusions from the ikkarim" means something about him being surprised at the catechism v'zehu, and then you demand that I prove you wrong, I have enough experience to know that we're not gonna get too far on this one.
And when when you announce that I "slandered" Shapiro, with absolutely nothing to back that up with, you're not in a position to kvetch about my lack of mentchlichkeit. A little self awareness and maybe some chazara of your earliest comments on this post might clear things up a bit.
Thanks for the update. And t9 typing, FTW.
Again, you claimed I misunderstand Shapiro. Fundamentally. If my misunderstandings of Shapiro are so fundamental, prove it. "Quote him, quote me, and and show what I've misunderstood."
Till then, ignore what follows. You're waaaaaay too busy for this:
Yo, listen up, I'll lay it down in rap,
Respect to people like Lou, engaging in endless chat,
Talking basics that every bar bei rav can see,
But you fell for Shapiro's credentials, oh, gee!
I ain't got the patience or the computer access,
But let me tell you, your starting point's a mess,
You think Shapiro's words mean something profound,
But it's just a surprise, no conclusions to be found.
You demand proof, but I know the score,
We won't get far, we've been here before,
And you accuse me of slandering, no proof in sight,
But don't complain 'bout my lack of mentchlichkeit.
You need some self-awareness, take a step back,
Go back and read your comments, no attack,
Let's clear things up, with some chazara, my friend,
Maybe then this conversation will have an end.
Excellent. Spectacularly done. You managed to make a letzanusdik comment about every line in that comment without once acknowledging (let alone deflecting) the actual point of the comment - that you had put out a letzanus poem about me that applies beautifully to you but not at all to me.
I see you've absorbed everything your master has to teach you.
Your posts are about as full of leitzanus and cheap shots as you can get. If you don't like being the target of ridicule, maybe don't engage in so much of it yourself.
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?
He is not
While you're at it, is Mecharker by any chance R Hershel Grossman?
Nope, I'm not. And neither are happygolucky or Rational Traditionalist!
"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."
I wasn't being facetious. If you can explain what about this quote negates my arguments, I'd really like to hear it and address it. Also, if I indeed slandered him, or said something that can be misconstrued as such, I'd like to know about it.
"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)."
Virtually everything here is wrong, and slanderously so. He isn't "best known for his revisionist scholarship of Judaism’s intellectual history,"
It isn't true that "Rarely does a critique of his work go by without a vigorous rejoinder from the professor." He hasn't responded to either of the prior 2 critiques I cited above either.
' 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. "
I've read plenty of Dr Shapiro's work. And critiscm of such. And I've never wondered about the intellectual capacities of his critics until the Rabbi Grossman showed up and flaunted his.
"(One notable exception is our essay “On Knowing How to Learn, Part II”, which to date has not been addressed by Dr. Shapiro).'
Said substack post is neither notable nor an exception to anything.
"He isn't "best known for his revisionist scholarship of Judaism’s intellectual history,""
Of all statements to take issue with, why this? It's obviously true. He engages in revisionism and is definitely best known for it.
I suppose if you define revisionism as anything which is novel. Though I'm not sure what that would really even mean. As opposed to what? Confirming what everyone already believes anyhow?
Novel is a Ketzos or a Rav Chaim. This *thing* from the original paper you linked, is revisionism
"...it was the Torah which originally
intended for the masses accept God's corporeality. In other words, it is not
merely that the Torah "misleads the people," but rather, the Torah taught them
a heretical doctrine..."
Among many other terrible things he writes
BTW thanks for linking that original paper. I will IYH write a post on it.
The preceding paragraph there.
"With this said, Maimonides must answer why the Torah used
corporeal
expressions to refer to God. And, indeed, his answer is striking. 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.)67 As Howard Kreisel has recently
noted: "It follows from Maimonides' remarks that the Torah deliberately
misleads the people in the matter of the corporeality of God. . . . The Torah has
no choice but to compromise with reality in order to educate the people
effectively."
Curious to hear you explain what the Rambam meant.
Ok fair enough. You had me nervous there - I had assumed that when you said I "slandered" Shapiro you meant that I had said some stuff that were, y'know, slanderous. These I can live with, even if you were right about them.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/slanderous
Exactly.
You appear not to know what the term revisionist research means. It's exactly what Shapiro does, and I highly doubt he'd take offense from or disagree with the description. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/revisionist
As for the rest of your ridiculous examples, there's nothing "slanderous" about them even if they'd be false, so there's no need to belabor the point. I'll sleep just fine tonight.
If you can try to articulate what what it is you see here that affects anything I wrote, as well as specify where you see 'slander' in my article, I'll do my best to clarify or concede as appropriate.
"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”?"
Briefly, you're conflating the formulation with the content. Shapiro, as far as I can tell, doesn't maintain that the Rambam disowned anything about the ikkarim. His point is that they don't show up as unit anywhere near as cohesively as they do in his pirush hamishna. And he points out what he sees as the ironic fact that the former has become the 'catechism." How many people say the yud gimmel ikkarim daily? A lot. How many peolple read perek gimmel of hilchos teshuva daily? Probably none. (See pages 14-19 of Limits at length.)
Your misunderstanding of Shapiro's objective is too fundamental to be resolved in this comment section. We're talking about two different Marc Shapiros who wrote two different books. Your guy sounds like he might be ok; my review here is talking about the other Shapiro.
Just out of curiosity - in your Shapiro's book, how does the statement "in abarbanel's mind only limited attention should be paid to the ikkurim and it certainly be wrong to draw conclusions about maimonide's theological views from a text designed for beginners" fit into making that point?
"Your misunderstanding of Shapiro's objective is to fundamental to be resolved in this comment section. "
I'm eagerly awaiting your explication of what his true objective is. I do hope you'll provide some actual quotes from him while doing so. Not some paraphrase of three lines with a bunch of ellipses thrown in.
"Your guy sounds like he might be ok; my review here is talking about the other Shapiro."
Oh, okay. Whatever. I suppose you have your own esoteric reading of Shapiro. Like when he says "Readers can compare Grossman’s arguments with my replies and draw their own judgment", he's *really* just trying to "maintain the perfect tone of above-the-fray disinterested academic together with wounded persecuted innocent, all while totally lambasting his opponent."
"Just out of curiosity"
I'm not here to satisfy your curiosity. I've spent enough time on this already. I've said my piece.
"I'm eagerly awaiting your explication of what his true objective is. I do hope you'll provide some actual quotes from him while doing so."
Ok, here's one for starters: "in abarbanel's mind only limited attention should be paid to the ikkurim and it certainly be wrong to draw conclusions about maimonide's theological views from a text designed for beginners".
https://seforimblog.com/2021/04/response-to-criticism-part-4-rabbi-zvi-yehuda-and-the-hazon-ish/
Rosh Amanah, ch. 23:
This explains why he did not list these principles in the Guide, in which he investigated deeply into the faith of the Torah, but mentioned them rather in his Commentary on the Mishnah, which he wrote in his youth. He postulated the principles for the masses, and for beginners in the study of Mishnah, but not for those individuals who plumbed the knowledge of truth for whom he wrote the Guide.
"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."
The biggest issue I have with Rabbi Grossman are that his insults crowd out everything he might have to say. (See quote at bottom) And it doesn't make it easier to follow what's actually going on. Also, it isn't Shapiro's fault that R Grossman chose to show up 20+ years after the book was published and write a review in a journal which seems to go into extended periods of hibernation. All while neglecting to cite to the previous 20 years of analysis/ critiques of Dr Shapiro.
https://seforimblog.com/2007/07/marc-b-shapiro-response-to-rabbi-zev/?print=print
https://jewishaction.com/letters/letters_to_the_editor3/
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40914582
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40914583
https://www.academia.edu/41801384/THE_LIMITS_OF_ACADEMIC_CRITICISM_A_Review_of_The_Limits_of_Orthodox_Theology
You have to comb through pages and pages of academic bashing about how "The academic approach to matters of Torah learning is radically different
from that of the talmid chochom. A talmid chochom. sits, as it were, at the feet of
the earlier commentators, with the clear assumption that the earlier commentators were fluent in every part of the Talmud and understood it better than he
does. If a difficulty or inconsistency in the words of the earlier authorities presents itself, the talmid chochom assumes that the fault is with him, the student,
not with the master, and that it is incumbent upon him to make every effort to
justify the words of the master.
On the other hand, many academics build their reputations on discrediting
previously accepted theories. When an apparent inconsistency in the writings of
the earlier authority presents itself, these academics rush to conclude that either
the master erred, or that he invented an idea for personal, historical or political
reasons. Interpretations of difficulties in the writings of earlier authorities offered
by world-class Talmudic scholars throughout the ages are cavalierly dismissed as
“obviously incorrect,” “forced” or “re-interpretations.” Though these judgments
are often made without proof, this academic poses as the ultimate authority, with
sufficient wisdom to dismiss or accept anything in his purview.
In short, for the talmid chochom, a difficulty in the words of the authority
creates a challenge for him to discover the true meaning of the authority. For
many academics, a difficulty is proof that the authority is wrong.
Professor Marc Shapiro’s The Limits of Orthodox Theology: Maimonides’
Thirteen Principles Reappraised is an example of this sort of scholarship. The
book is a study of the Thirteen Principles of Jewish faith by the Rambam. Its
thrust is that the Rambam erred in codifying these Principles and it “takes issue
with the widespread assumption that Maimonides’ famous Thirteen Principles
are the last word in Orthodox Jewish theology.”2
While some earlier scholars
have disputed whether some of the Principles deserve to be listed as basic to
Judaism but have all conceded that the tenets expressed by the Principles are
correct, Shapiro goes further and purports to demonstrate that, in traditional
Jewish sources, many “scholars … thought that Maimonides’ Principles were
wrong, pure and simple."... In his lengthy introduction, Shapiro states that he is following in the footsteps of Louis Jacobs and Menachem Kellner,4
academic scholars whose prior
elucidations of Maimonides’ Principles have challenged the prevailing notions
in the traditional community.
Kellner believes that academics, including himself, understand the Rambam
better than world-famous Torah authorities. In his words:
My colleagues and I, academic Rambam scholars, despite the disputes
among us, understand the Rambam better than people like Rebbe Elchanan
Wasserman. The Rambam is among the few individuals about whom it can
be said that if he has adopted a certain position, that position is now “kasher”
from a Torah perspective. From this we can conclude that my colleagues
and I understand one Torah perspective better than Reb Elchanan and his
colleagues, the contemporary Roshei Yeshiva.5
Shapiro, who mocks the opinions of Rabbeynu Nissim,6
R. Moshe
Feinstein,7
Chazon Ish,8
Arizal9
and R. Ya’akov Emden,10 among others,
goes one step beyond Kellner in his belief that he, Shapiro, is better able than
Rambam to interpret explicit verses of the Torah (as we shall see below).
Shapiro does not refrain from adducing explicit Talmudic passages as
contradictions to the Rambam, presuming that the Rambam overlooked
or ignored them, something which innumerable Talmudic scholars in past "
=========
And then to come back and claim that Shapiro is the one with preconceived conclusions? Please.
And therefore?
R. Grossman is right, so what is the problem here.
Please read this thread
http://forum.otzar.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=17983&hilit=%D7%91%D7%A0%D7%99+%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%95%D7%9F&sid=27191ff5b4cc0e5058f38025f324f1fb#p172115
Please see what I wrote here
http://forum.otzar.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=5838&hilit=%D7%91%D7%A0%D7%99+%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%95%D7%9F&sid=27191ff5b4cc0e5058f38025f324f1fb&start=80#p88972
The document attached there is part of the מבוא to my PHD thesis
Say what?
How does answer the point RT made?
The point evaporates. He misquoted Dr Shapiro. Again, have you read the book?
Curious, did you write the book? Also, would love to see what you think of my take on Bible criticism in Boris the Terrible Shavuot
https://ishayirashashem.substack.com/p/boris-the-terrible-dreams-about-shavuot?sd=pf
Nu huh
Have you read this post?
Guess we’ll leave it to readers to see which is more compelling.
Agreed.
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.
I would assume the Rivash is one of the 4 points Traditionalist agrees to Dr Shapiro. Impatient aren’t you?
Not impatient at all. Just a bit disgusted at the ongoing hatchet job.
Wouldn’t it be more persuasive to explain why you find a point raised on this post “a hatchet job” rather than running straight to other points some of which he has said he agrees with?
I doubt it. There doesn't seem to be much of an interest in actual debate on the merits. In any case, I'm not here to claim Dr Shapiro is right about everything or most things. I just find it distasteful and dishonest to slander a scholar who did his homework.
We are grading his homework here and explaining why he flunked.
Whatever.
"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.
“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.“
Doesn’t sound like you read the Grossmans article at all. Maybe read it patiently before you comment on it’s contents.
I read it. I have a copy of Dialogue. Have you read Dr Shapiro's book?
Like the Dialogue journal?
Yes.
Great.
What about people that claim 'yichud' does not mean ''seclusion'?
Dunno what you’re referring to, but did they write a book about it?
Lou, email me, and I'll tell you what he's talking about if you're interested. He still didn't figure out what else "yichud" means, and I don't want to tell him just yet!
It's like the guy who doesn't know English and thinks that "bark" only means something a dog does, and at every opportunity he mentions this crazy guy who talked about tree bark...
Wow, this Shapiro dude is a real piece of work. He must have taken a propaganda course at Trump University or something.
Gosh, why do you have such a strange crazy obsession with this post? What are you going to do next? Make it into a cookbook? Write it on the back of a red herring and hang it on a wall?
Me: Write a funny story about a fictional guy named Shaul Shapira who read a substack post named The Art of the Rebuttal, Part 1, about Dr. Marc Shapiro's rebuttal on Rabbi Herschel Grossman's response to him about the 13 ikkarim and became so disturbed by it that he obsessively read it over and over again, and dropped endless comments, most not making too much sense, and refusing to accept any mistakes that he made. He ended up running out of ideas and feeding the post through ChatGPT and asking it to create funny variations of it and posting it in the comments. He gave off a very unbalanced and disturbed impression.
ChatGPT: Once upon a time in the bustling town of Banterville, there lived a peculiar fellow named Shaul Shapira. Shaul had a penchant for the eccentric and a boundless curiosity that often led him down unusual paths. One fateful day, as he perused the depths of the internet, he stumbled upon a thought-provoking Substack post that would turn his world upside down.
The post in question was titled "The Art of the Rebuttal, Part 1: Dr. Marc Shapiro's Epic Response to Rabbi Herschel Grossman's Musings on the 13 Ikkarim." It delved into the intricacies of a scholarly debate between the esteemed Dr. Shapiro and Rabbi Grossman, revolving around the sacred concept of the 13 fundamental principles of faith.
Shaul, being the inquisitive soul that he was, found himself irresistibly drawn into the intellectual battleground of ideas. He devoured the post once, twice, thrice, and then endlessly on repeat, his mind intoxicated by the intellectual sparring.
However, as Shaul immersed himself deeper into the post, his fascination took a peculiar turn. He became obsessed with the minutiae, dissecting every sentence, every argument, and every subtle nuance with a fervor bordering on the fanatical. He couldn't help himself but to drop endless comments on the post, each one more convoluted than the last.
"I must express my utmost admiration for Dr. Shapiro's unparalleled eloquence in dismantling Rabbi Grossman's response," he typed feverishly, his fingers dancing across the keyboard. "It's as if he wields the power of a thousand scholarly swords, slicing through fallacies with the precision of a laser-guided logic beam!"
Shaul's comments became a cacophony of ramblings, a never-ending symphony of confusion. He obstinately refused to acknowledge any errors he made, instead doubling down on his convoluted statements. "Surely, Rabbi Grossman's use of the term 'epistemological quagmire' is a subtle nod to the philosophical debates of the ancient Greeks," he mused, despite the concept being entirely unrelated to the discussion at hand.
As Shaul's imagination ran dry, he found himself in a predicament. How could he continue commenting without any fresh insights? That's when he hatched a peculiar plan. He decided to turn to his trusted companion, ChatGPT, the AI language model, in a desperate attempt to conjure amusing variations of the post and inject some much-needed levity into his comments.
Shaul's comments transformed into a whirlwind of absurdity. "What if Dr. Shapiro and Rabbi Grossman engaged in a rap battle of theological proportions, dropping rhymes about the 13 ikkarim?" he suggested, the image of two esteemed scholars donning oversized gold chains and unleashing verbal fireworks dancing in his mind. "Or perhaps they could settle their differences in a grand chess match, with each move representing a theological argument. Checkmate, theological dissent!"
The Substack community oscillated between bemusement and concern as they witnessed Shaul's unbalanced and disturbed persona unfold before their eyes. Some found his antics amusing, a momentary diversion from the weightiness of the scholarly debate, while others worried about the state of his sanity.
And so, dear reader, the tale of Shaul Shapira, the man who read a Substack post and spiraled into an obsession with the art of the rebuttal, draws to a close. In the realm of intellectual pursuits, even the most serious debates can give birth to moments of levity and madness. It is within these realms that curious souls like Shaul find themselves, teetering on the edge between enlightenment and eccentricity.
Not bad, though you kind of stacked the deck by *telling* it that I'm unbalanced, don't make much sense etc. Which is fine. Just noting that I simply fed it mecharker's posts as is and let it go to work. If you could get chatGPT to conclude that I'm unbalanced based on my own comments, I'd be more impressed.
But truthfully, I'm tired and figured it would be a nice mindless diversion.
ChatGPT thinks that this is Talmudic style for some reason:
Verily, why dost thou harbor such a peculiar and frenzied preoccupation with this proclamation? Pray tell, what shall be thy future course of action? Shall thou fashion it into a tome of culinary instructions? Or inscribe it upon the dorsal side of a red herring, only to suspend it upon a wall?
One or two off-topic poems would have been fine. But I so far removed 9 of them! Notice I left up all your comments, which have substance. We even allow trolls like "test" to post here. Please have some self control!
C-E-N-S-O-R-S-H-I-P
Kidding. You can delete whatever you like. Doesn't bother me at all. I posted my stuff after it seemed clear to me that there wasn't much else happening in this veritable torah bastion of a comment section. And I figured that the internet isn't exactly running out of space.