The Art of the Rebuttal, Part 2

More fact-checking of Dr. Marc Shapiro’s “Final Response”

Introduction

We continue our assessment of Dr. Shapiro’s Final Response to R. Herschel Grossman (see Part 1, here). Once again, our primary focus is on studying the rebuttal techniques that can be learned from the discussion.

SECTION 3: SHAPIRO’S CORRECT RESPONSES 

Out of the 28 critiques found in Grossman’s second essay, we’ve identified three which Dr. Shapiro correctly deflects¹. Below we will list these instances with some background for clarity. (Of course, any good rebuttal starts with capitalizing on the instances where your opponent is indeed wrong, and we have much to learn from the professor in this regard as well).

#1: The greatest prophet

In his third response, Dr. Shapiro quotes in the name of Rav Kook that Adam HaRishon kodem haChet was a greater prophet than Moshe Rabbeinu. Shapiro sees this as a contradiction to the 7^th Principle. R. Grossman (pg. 182) argues that Shapiro is making contradictions where none exist, because the focus of the 7^th principle is on Moshe's status as the “av haneviim”, not necessarily the “greatest” prophet. 

In his understanding of the principle, Grossman appears to be basing himself on the approach expounded by R' Moshe Shapira Zt”l² and others. Yet he is still wrong here, for two reasons: Firstly, as much as the reason that this is an ikkur may stem from the "av" element, the Rambam does clearly spell out four areas of "greatness" in prophecy that are inherent to being the av haneviim. If Grossman wants to argue that there's no conflict between the principle and Adam being a "greater" navi, he'd have to explain the element of "greatness" Adam had, and demonstrate that it is not one of the four enumerated by the Rambam as unique to Moshe. Grossman does not do this, so his argument is at best incomplete. In context, this does indeed seem to be his intent – that Adam had a unique clairvoyance, stemming perhaps from the ohr haganuz and referred to as זהירא עילאה, which doesn't necessarily contradict the four points that Rambam describes as specific to Moshe. However, he does not make this point clearly; it definitely comes across as if he's rejecting the idea of Moshe being necessarily the "greatest" navi altogether, which is obviously ridiculous. We join Dr. Shapiro in wondering where the editors were on this one.

Grossman’s attack is unfair for a more fundamental reason as well – Shapiro himself acknowledged the assumption that Adam's greatness was of a different sort than Moshe's, yet his source (Rav Shlomo Aviner) insisted that Rav Kook said it was the same. So לא על פרופ' שפירא תלונאותיו. (Rav Aviner himself explained the discrepancy by stating that the pre-Sin world is different³, an idea that seems to have basis in classical sources as well, but is beyond the scope of this review to delve into).

#2: R’ Avraham Hochman

In his book, Dr. Shapiro builds a case that in his later years the Rambam himself moved away from his system of 13 Ikkurim as the foundation of Judaism. In support of this startling assertion, the professor observes that the 13 ikkurim are not listed as a unit in the Mishneh Torah, which he considers extremely significant. If the Rambam indeed felt as strongly about their status as fundamentals as he expresses in the Pirush Hamishnayus, why did he not stress them as such in his magnum opus?⁴

Rabbi Grossman, in his first article, states that the very question is invalid because given the structure of Mishneh Torah there’s be no place for listing the ikkurim as a unit.

To this Dr. Shapiro responded by quoting from several seforim that also ask the question, which demonstrates that it is indeed a valid question, contrary to Grossman’s claim. One of those he quotes is R’ Avraham Menachem Hochman who asks why the Rambam doesn’t organize the ikkurim in Mishna Torah in the same way he does in the pirush hamishnayus.

Rav Hochman’s point was not, as Shapiro would have it, that the Rambam doesn’t stress them in his later work; rather he was noting a difference in presentation (that in Mishneh Torah they are listed in the negative sense – one who rejects them loses his share in Olam Habah – whereas the earlier formulation was as ideas we must proactively accept)⁵, and then goes on to explain why this is indeed the appropriate formulation for the Mishneh Torah. Ultimately, however, he does preface the discussion with a question of “Why were the principles not written in the same manner here as they were in the pirush”, so Shapiro is correct to point to it as a source that his question was not ignorant.  

When he heard the manner in which Shapiro had used his question, Rav Hochman was quite upset. He wrote a strong letter against Shapiro’s understanding, which Grossman included as an appendix to his second article. He also rejected the idea of making too much out of the question itself, which was expressed as a way to build up to a point. In his Final Response Shapiro dismisses the fuss as ‘nothing short of bizarre’, because he was essentially accurate in his quotation of the question.

The only thing bizarre is why Shapiro can’t understand that someone would object to being associated with a ludicrous conclusion because somewhere in the process of learning the Rambam he expressed a certain question in order to frame an explanation. Be that as it may, Rav Hochman does say the words which Grossman had labeled as invalid, so, with regard to this detail, we list this as Dr. Shapiro’s second correct response.     

#3: Shadal

Dr. Shapiro⁶ quotes Shmuel Dovid Luzzato (Shadal) who ascribes to ibn Ezra the view that certain pesukim in the Torah are later insertions⁷. In his second article⁸, Grossman claims this citation is misleading – Shadal only quoted this interpretation of ibn Ezra from the heretic Baruch Spinoza, but he himself actually debunks it.

R. Grossman is wrong; Shadal does subscribe to this interpretation. What he quotes from Spinoza is something far more extreme – that ibn Ezra believed most of the Torah was not written by Moshe על"פ – and it is that that he debunks. Dr. Shapiro showcases this error quite prominently, and he is justified in doing so.

Moving beyond belief

But then Shapiro milks it a bit further, and things start to get odd:

“I must also note that Grossman… also compares me to Spinoza in trying to ensnare the unsuspecting masses. If this wasn’t so comical, I might actually take offense. But I think readers should wonder how an author could say such a thing, and how a journal could publish it. It is simply beyond belief.”

This complaint of Shapiro’s is most curious, and extraordinarily revealing. I can’t know for certain, but I strongly suspect that his confusion and consternation are sincere.

What’s comical? What’s beyond belief? That a traditionalist wrote about Shapiro’s “tactics to put into the hearts of those who are easily swayed”? Take a step a step back a moment. Marc Shapiro wrote an article and book with a stated agenda: to demonstrate that the yud gimmel ikkarei emuna are not the “last word in Jewish theology”, that many scholars throughout the generations considered them to be “wrong, pure and simple”⁹, and that we should thus conclude that “the fact that Maimonides placed the stamp of apostasy on anyone who disagreed with his principles did not frighten away numerous great sages from their search for the truth. The lesson for moderns is clear”¹⁰.

Now, as Shapiro is aware and documents, traditionalists do not share this view and its stated ramifications. They prefer to receive their theological framework from the gedolei Torah v’avoda (like the Chazon Ish, R’ Moshe Feinstein, and the many others whom Shapiro mentions and those that he doesn’t) through whom we received everything else about their mesorah, and don’t feel compelled to restructure their Yahadus every time some academic submits a research paper. Thus, they actually do believe that the ikkarei emunah are the principles of faith without which one’s Judaism and Olam Habah are in jeopardy, and as such the professor’s “clear lesson for the moderns” is an invitation to spiritual suicide.

Shapiro knows this – indeed, that’s his starting point – but he dismisses it as a result of a “dogmatism in matters of belief”, and the “fear [of] breaking down the walls of theological conformity that have been so patiently constructed”¹¹. He therefore delightedly reports that “in one well known Yeshiva” his article was “passed from student to student as if it were Haskalah literature in late nineteenth century Volozhin”, until the point that “a teacher at this Yeshiva was even forced to speak about it with his students”¹².

Very well, Shapiro may (or may not) be entitled to his opinions. But – get this – so are the traditionalists. And in their opinion Shapiro is watering down core theological principles amongst the unsuspecting masses (and bragging about it to boot), so what exactly is “comical” or “beyond belief” about saying so? And why on earth should “readers wonder how an author could say such a thing, and how a journal could publish it”?

Best I can make out, Shapiro’s shock at the accusation comes from the fact that he assumes that he is right and the bnei Torah are wrong. Splendid, so did Spinoza. The transparent lack of self-awareness is sobering.

SECTION 4: MORE DREI KUPS

Here we will provide the final two examples of what we categorized in our first installment as ‘reengineering’ (see there for the first example).

#2: Rivash

Some have said that this is amongst the cases where Shapiro’s response was correct. I strongly disagree, and I’ll explain why. Ultimately, it will be for the readers to decide.

In his book¹³, Dr. Shapiro spends time on the supposed contradiction between the kabalistic concept of sefiros and the doctrine of Divine unity. While acknowledging that the kabbalists themselves “never regarded [the sefiros] as doing violence to G-d’s absolute unity”, Shapiro maintains that “had Maimonides known of the concept he would have [considered it a contradiction]” as “it is impossible to reconcile the kabbalistic understanding of G-d… with the simple unknowable G-d of Maimonides” ¹⁴.

In this context Shapiro cites the “opponents of kabala” who “understandably regarded themselves as following in Maimonides’ footsteps” and “viewed the sefirot in the same way as the trinity, namely, as a violation of G-d’s absolute unity and thus idolatrous”. 

So who are these opponents of kabala that follow in Rambam’s footsteps in viewing the sefiros as idolatrous? Shapiro provides two: the second is Rabbi Avraham Abulafia¹⁵. The first citation is stated as follows: “In a famous responsum, R. Issac ben Sheshet (1326 – 1407) quotes a philosopher who argued that, whereas the Christians believe in ‘three’ the kabbalists believe in ’ten’.”

Nothing in the quote or the context gives impression that this is anything other than a legitimate source for the view being approvingly presented and argued for in these pages – that the sefirotic system contradicts the Second Principle.

Grossman points out that this is terribly misleading: the Rivash quotes the statement of the philosopher specifically to debunk it.

Dr. Shapiro responds to this critique by instructing the reader to recognize on his own how silly it is: 

“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.”

He then posts a picture of the page (see here).

Of first note is that the paragraph as accentuated is patently false: the italicized “in support of” indicates that the real purpose in quoting these sources is actually somehow in opposition to this position, which is simply not the facts of the matter. This is the position Shapiro endorses and declares the authentic Maimonidean one; these quotes were cited in the process of laying it out.

We’ll go on a limb here and assume that his misleading stress is the result of carelessness, not mendacity. Very well, so what then is his response? Presumably, he means to point out that he never said that the Rivash agrees with the idea, he just says he quoted it from a philosopher¹⁶.

Perhaps. But there’s quite some distance between saying the Rivash quoted it from a philosopher, and actually presenting it accurately – that the Rivash quotes it in order to debunk it. And in the context of the author approving of the general idea, it’s strange to assume that the reader would pick that up on his own, or come away with any other impression than that this is a documented position in classical Rabbinic literature.

And of course that was, at least subconsciously, the intent. Do you really think that a nameless unknown philosopher from 700 years ago is the only person in all of history Shapiro could find that espouses such a view of kabala? A quick Google search can turn up dozens of people, philosophers or otherwise, that you can actually quote by name if you were just looking for any old fellow who says the view regardless of how irrelevant he is as an authority. There’s a reason why Shapiro felt it would flow better in context when cited with the Rivash’s name attached to it.

Now, I don’t necessarily assume that Shapiro sat in a smoke-filled room nefariously hatching a plot to fool people into thinking that the Rivash was anti-kabala. But I do think it’s obvious that he preferred a more authoritative-sounding reference when laying out the position. And thus, providing the philosopher-quoted-by-Rivash to give off that feeling of authoritativeness, without indicating in any way that this is merely some random guy that the Rivash puts up to show up, is misleading.

What’s more important for our study is that Shapiro could have cleared up the matter very easily and appropriately: an honest response to criticism would have simply acknowledged the possibility for error in the presentation, yet insisted that the intent was not to imply that the Rivash held this way, perhaps I should have been more explicit.

But Shapiro did not set out to write an honest response to criticism. He set out to write a Final Response – and to breezily write off all these spurious attacks as dishonest knee jerk zealotry. Hence, an offhanded paragraph calling on the reader to realize on his own how ridiculous the slanderous charge is: just take a look at this page, I haven’t got time for this.

And for us, another beautiful rebuttal technique for our collection.

#3: Rav Shlomo Fisher

Possibly the most striking incident of dreing ah kup occurs in the discussion of Rav Shlomo Fisher's views. Dr. Shapiro had quoted some provocative ideas in Rav Fisher's name. What's notable is not that he'd quote them, but rather how he sourced them. Grossman attempted to trace Shapiro’s sources back to Rav Fisher, and records a bizarre sequence of second-hand anonymous buck passing, culminating in a cloak and dagger phone call from an unidentified caller who claimed to have heard something from Rav Fisher¹⁷.

At any rate, when these statements were shown to Rav Fisher’s son and close disciple, he vociferously denied that his father held such views, and referenced a letter from Rav Fisher asking that people refrain from publishing hagada or hashkafa ideas in his name unless they were prescreened by his sons.

In his Final Response, Shapiro entirely sidesteps the pressing issue – that he had built a case about Rav Fisher’s views for which he has no real source and which R. Fisher’s son, who should know a thing or two about his father’s opinions, states unequivocally is inaccurate. Instead, he chooses to focus on the letter.

And boy does he focus on it¹⁸. Shapiro goes on and on about how outlandish it would be to expect anybody to comply with such a request, which is ‘unprecedented in Torah history’. Rav Fisher had many students and said thousands of shiurim, of course people are going to quote his Torah. This letter would mean that many of the eulogies that people said on him, during which they recalled things he said, were inappropriate. And that no student would be allowed to repeat things they heard from their rebbe. Ridiculous.

Shalom Aleichem. When a gadol puts out a statement like that in response to having his positions on nuanced and delicate matters misconstrued and disseminated in his name, the concern is not about students saying over a darher by his levaya. The concern is about Marc Shapiro publishing that he held that the Rambam changed his mind about the system of the ikkarim.

It’s not clear if Shapiro is being intentionally dense, or if he truly has a hard time with these things. Either way, the objective is accomplished, several paragraphs of condescending writing is out there, the actual subject of the critique is forgotten, and those who dare raise questions about the professor’s assertions are made to look unreasonable. Rebuttalism at its finest.

We can only stand in awe. And take notes.

To be continued.  

1. In our previous post we promised 4 such instances, but one unfortunately did not hold up to further scrutiny. It will be discussed in a future post.

2. See Re’eh Emunah chapter 14

3. The discussion thus leaves us unsure of what Shapiro’s point is in bringing it up. Does he think that it somehow bolsters his thesis? If so, he has lost his train of thought – those who speak of Adam’s greatness vis a vis Moshe’s do so because they understand a nuance within the sugya, not because they disagree with the principle. This is a recurring issue in Dr. Shapiro’s presentations – he approaches the sources as an outside researcher, unwilling or unable to analyze the internal reasoning, ramifications, and parameters of the topic. Every superficial conflict is thus deemed a “contradiction”, as opposed to a window into the interrelated strata of depth that are inherent characteristics of every sugya, and indeed of any intellectual field at all.

4. The merits or lack thereof of this argument need not detain us here; our focus now is on R. Grossman’s response and Shapiro’s rejoinder to it.

5. Shapiro confuses this point by truncating his quote from Rav Hochman midsentence: Hochman asks why the Rambam changed direction"ולא סדרם כי"ג יסודי האמונה שחובה להאמין בהם, וסדרם רק באופן השלילה בהל' תשובה שהכופר בהם יוצא מכלל ישראל". Shapiro leaves out the last part of the question, making it sound like Hochman’s question was about their absence, not about a change of presentation. He then can say that “R. Hochman goes on to explain that most of the principles are indeed mentioned in Hilkhot Yesodei Hatorah in a positive sense”, as if this were Hochman’s tirutz to his kashya, as opposed to the premise of the kashya itself. Thus, in his Final Response he can bewilderedly claim, “As the reader can see, contrary to what R. Hochman states, I mention not just his question but his answer as well”. It’s not clear to me if he’s intentionally obfuscating or has just completely missed the boat on this one.  

6. Limits pg. 108

7. Of course, Shadal’s views on their own are of little consequence to us. Our discussion here is only about whether or not the citation is accurate.

8. Pg. 179

9. Pg. 4

10. From the book’s concluding paragraph, pg. 158

11. Pg. 158

12. Pg. 157

13. Pgs. 40 - 44

14. Further in the same discussion, Shapiro writes that “there have been times when it is difficult for all but the most vigorous defenders of the sefirotic system not to see in it a departure from the doctrine of the unity of G-d”, and “it becomes increasingly hard to accept the rhetoric that even in the sefirotic system the unity of G-d remains uncorrupted”. He concludes the chapter by stating “From a Maimonidean perspective… they indeed violate the intent, if not the letter, of the Second Principle”. 

15. A medieval kabbalist who definitely had his detractors, but is still considered by many an authority to be reckoned with.

16. Grossman was not aboveboard in his quote either, as he does not tell us that Shapiro mentions the philosopher at all. If Shapiro had chosen to point that out, that would be a legitimate complaint. But the general critique remains.

17. Shapiro completely ignores this revelation of feeble grounding in his Final Response, stressing that Rav Fisher held R. Betzalel Naor in high regard. He forgets to mention Grossman’s report that Rav Fisher’s family contacted Naor to verify that he had actually heard the statement in question from Rav Fisher, and he would not confirm it. But hey, Rav Fisher held him in high regard, which is significant… somehow. See the full saga on pg. 178 of Grossman’s second article, and compare to Shapiro’s treatment of it in his Final Response.

18. Here’s Shapiro: “We all know that misquoting of gedolim is nothing new. There are numerous examples of particular great rabbis being quoted as saying contradictory things, and of these rabbis stating that no one should believe anything they hear in their names unless they hear it directly from the rabbi. Yet this has never stopped people from quoting the gedolim and never will. This is simply the nature of the world.

R. Fisher gave thousands of shiurim (a tiny percentage of them are online) and there are thousands of students who heard words of Torah from him. As with all students, they have repeated, and will continue to repeat, that which they heard from the rav, just like all students do. They have been doing this for at least fifty years. If R. Fisher’s letter means what it says, that no one is to repeat things that R. Fisher said, then this is simply an impossible request, and it also seems unprecedented in Torah history. It would mean that one who listens to a shiur from him dealing with non-halakhic matters, e.g., this one here, is not allowed to repeat any insights he heard. It would also mean that much of what was mentioned at the many eulogies, where people recalled things R. Fisher said, or on sites such as this and this, is inappropriate. It would mean that students are not allowed to repeat that which they heard from their rebbe. I don’t see how this is possible.”