"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."
"On the book’s last page, Shapiro writes of the book’s significance in
the context of reigning trends in Orthodoxy. “Together with the turn to
the right in Orthodoxy, which has led to an increasing stringency in
many areas of halakhah, an ever increasing dogmatism in matters of
belief is also apparent” (p. 158). Shapiro apparently sees this volume as
an important resource against this dogmatism, and indeed it is. If R.
Joseph B. Soloveitchik can be accused of heresy for writing that secular
Zionists acquired the land of Israel through building an altar of factories
(a homiletic expression of their dedication)3 and if Rav Kook can be
termed a well known heretic,4 then the misuse of the term “heresy” has
gotten out of hand. More recent misuse of the term “heresy” includes
attacks on the revadim approach to gemara learning5 and the banning of
books that portray the human dimension of biblical heroes.6 Yahadut
can accommodate a good deal of diverse opinion and even sharp debate
without anyone being branded a kofer.
However, Shapiro makes no reference to a danger found on the
opposing point of the Orthodox spectrum. Under the influence of modern relativism and epistemological skeptics, many contemporary writers
attempt to deny the significance of dogmas in Judaism altogether.
Tamar Ross argues that Rav Kook views Jewish beliefs as having only
instrumental value but not as cognitive truths.7 She argues for a position
in which we view Buddhism, Christianity and Islam as equal tions of the same truth as Judaism.8 Menachem Kellner published a
book arguing that beliefs are not a basis for deciding who is part of the
religious community.9 In a more quixotic venture, Aryeh Botwinick
tries to identify Rambam’s negative theology with post-modern skepticism.10 Gili Zivan explores the post-modern implications of contemporary Jewish theologians who despair of the notion of objective truth.11
David Singer compares David Berger to Torquemada for arguing that
the idea of a messiah having a second coming in order to fulfill the messianic prophecies is beyond the pale.12 While it is difficult to estimate the
influence of these writers, I think it fair to say that the liberal edge of
Orthodoxy is tempted by this position. Self-referential usage of the term
“halakhic” in place of “Orthodox” may reflect this ideology.13 No doubt,
adherents of the Orthoprax approach will be quick to utilize Shapiro’s
work as a support. Had Shapiro also kept this second extreme in mind
and taken steps to more forcefully combat it, he would have written a
better book."
======
The problem is that it indeed cuts both ways. And who counts as a traditionalist in good standing seems to shrink by the day.
Also, does Shapiro get 'credit' for emphatically rejecting and debunking the notion that there's no such thing as any dogma whatsoever within Judaism (pages 29-31)? Keep in mind that for many of his readers, there's no guarantee that the alternative to Shapiro would be the Chazon Ish or R Moshe Feinstein, rather than Yitz Greenberg, David Hartman, or Zalman Shechter-Shalomi.
I've always found the first half of Rabbi Blau's rather forced dichotomy to be an exercise in channeling Amelia Bedilia. Welcome to the wonderful world of colloquialisms buddy - yes, sometimes the word "kefira" is used in the sense of "anathema", not necessarily to describe something as literal halachic heresy.
At any rate, your argument here is difficult to accept. It's not like Shapiro is saying something that's merely "nisht fun unzereh hashkafa". He's advocating that we need not take the yud gimel ikarei emunah too seriously - "the lesson for the moderns is clear" and all of that. I cannot think of a more literal definition of kefira and hasata. So I find it impossible to imagine a justification, no matter where his followers are coming from.
"Welcome to the wonderful world of colloquialisms buddy - yes, sometimes the word "kefira" is used in the sense of "anathema", not necessarily to describe something as literal halachic heresy."
Kind of like saying that everyone accepted yud gimmel ikkarim.
"He's advocating that we need not take the yud gimel ikarei emunah too seriously - "the lesson for the moderns is clear"
Not less seriously. Just not as a bludgeon.
"and all of that"
I.e. what he says in the paragraph leading up to your quote.
"I cannot think of a more literal definition of kefira and hasata."
I certainly can. I can link to some if you'd like. I'd rather not. But if you insist....
"The lesson for moderns is clear"- meaning that he disputes Rabbi Parnes's assertion that we must place strict limits of inquiry into areas that may undermine the יג עקרי אמונה. Shapiro is of the opinion that we should allow inquiry into areas that may undermine the יג עקרי אמונה, because you see, he doesn't think they are determinative of heresy. And boy oh boy does he go ahead and undermine them. Especially Torah m'Shamayim. This characterizes every article of his on this subject that I read, as well as other articles, like "IS MODERN ORTHODOXY MOVING TOWARDS AN ACCEPTANCE OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM?" (see page 2 where he cites Limits). So I agree with RT, Shapiro is very close to a meisis and mediach if not literally one.
"On the previous page, Student elaborates on Maimonides’ reasons for rejecting Aristotle’s view of the eternity of the universe. Maimonides notes that Aristotle was never able to prove his point, and he also states that if Aristotle’s position is true, then Judaism as we know it would be rendered meaningless (Guide of the Perplexed 2:25). Yet if Aristotle’s viewpoint was actually proven, can we really believe that Maimonides would have rejected Judaism entirely? It is much more likely that he would have reinterpreted the traditional belief in accord with the new proven knowledge (and the emphasis is on “proven”). After all, Maimonides tells us that the creation narrative of the Torah can be reinterpreted in accord with Aristotle’s position, but basic theological reasons prevent us from doing so. I assume Student has the same approach when it comes to biblical criticism. If one of its major points were proven, by which I mean an actual proof that all could accept, would this mean the end of Judaism? As R. Immanuel Jakobovits once told me, the answer is absolutely no. As far as R. Jakobovits was concerned—and would anyone disagree?—the only result of the new evidence would be that the traditional belief would have to be reformulated."
Hahaha, he really doesn't understand our way of thinking at all.
This part was interesting
" Student’s instinct is correct, and now is a good place to quote from Jacobs’ letter to me dated September 27, 1987, in which we see, among other interesting things, that Jacobs indeed affirmed an actual revelatory event at Sinai.
On revelation there is much to discuss. For the moment I am a little puzzled by what you mean when you write about “the physical revelation”. Do you mean the thunder and lightning? I do not deny that something of this sort took place, although how could one know, but believe that it is of no relevance. But I do believe in Torah min ha-Shamayyim and here would agree that without this belief Judaism makes little sense as a religion. Indeed, what I and many others have been trying to do is to defend the doctrine of Torah min ha-Shamayyim by trying to show that it need not be understood in a fundamentalist manner. Thus I am far from “denying any original Torah,” as you put it. On the contrary, the Torah for me is the whole process, in which there is a human element but also a divine element. Your remarks about how do I know that Judaism has more truth than other religions can just as easily be turned against you. How do you know that there was an “original” physical revelation? The Hindus deny that it ever took place. You believe that Judaism is more true than other religions because you are a believer in the Torah and I am also a believer in the Torah. Surely your logic is at fault in this argument."
I wish we had the letter that Shapiro sent him, but it sounds like Shapiro believed at some point that Torah M'Sinai proves the truth of Judaism.
"Rabbi Buchman is not the first person to (mis)read Rambam as
he does. There is a long history of Jews looking at what Rambam
wrote and responding: “This is Greek to me! It is not possible that
Rambam actually believed these things.” Taking the Orthodoxy of
their day as determining what Rambam must have meant, these interpreters have forced Rambam’s text to mean whatever they think
Judaism (as they claim to understand it) teaches."
"[Rabbi Buchman]'s criticisms of some of my scholarship reminded me of several experiences I have had. Some years ago, I had the privilege of participating in a Jewish Christian-Shi’ite religious “conversation” outside of Lucerne, Switzerland. Many of the Muslim participants in the event were leading Ayatollahs from Iran. They proved themselves to be far more cultured, urbane, and sophisticated than one would expect from the
image of Iranian ayatollahs to which we are usually exposed. I
found it both striking and amusing that they saw themselves, not as the intellectual descendants of medieval rationalist Muslim theologians known as Muatazilites (known to readers of Hakirah from
Guide of the Perplexed III.17), but as still engaged in their debates, as
if 800 years had not passed. They were still angry with the Asherites
(doctrinaire orthodox opponents of the Muatazilites) for misrepresenting Islam. Unlike Islam, Judaism has developed a linear tradition of interpretation (such as geonim, rishonim, aharonim) and a sense of its own history. Muslims are still in the original period.
Some Haredi thinkers treat Judaism in much the same fashion as
the Muslim theologians whom I met (while also insisting on yeridat
ha-dorot3). Opposed to this is the historical approach which characterizes the academic study of Judaism and about which Modern Orthodoxy seems to me to be somewhat schizophrenic."
"Jews have responded in many ways to the challenge implicit in
Rambam’s writings. At first, an attempt was made to throw him
out of the dormitory. When that failed, the next step was basically
to ignore what he said.17 Given the plethora of editions and translations of his works in the modern world, not to mention the literally thousands of articles and books written about him, that has grown ever more difficult. One option is to decide that since he is obviously still in the dormitory, he must agree with what all the other denizens of that dormitory think—that is Asher Benzion Buchman’s
approach, an approach that involves forcing Rambam’s square peg
into round holes. Another approach, truer to Rambam, is to acknowledge that the dormitory has more rooms than is often
thought. "
"It is striking that the “yeshiva world” has yet to produce a single translation of or commentary on the Guide of the Perplexed. There is not even a “yeshivish” edition of Samuel ibn Tibbon’s medieval translation of the Guide of the Perplexed."
"As R. Immanuel Jakobovits once told me, the answer is absolutely no. As far as R. Jakobovits was concerned—and would anyone disagree?—the only result of the new evidence would be that the traditional belief would have to be reformulated."
Personally, I'm more interested in what R. Immanuel Jakobovits told Shapiro than whatever Jacobs did.
"but it sounds like Shapiro believed at some point that Torah M'Sinai proves the truth of Judaism."
Meaning what? That if you believe in the former, the latter follows? That's pretty much true by definition. (Jacobs 'redefined' torah misinai out of existence, but that's a whole different level of kefira, which basically makes things mean whatever one wants them to mean.)
Nothing to do with anything, I was just reading through some blog post by Dr. Shapiro and found the following passage both hilarious and demonstrative. The post is here: https://seforimblog.com/2019/01/another-obvious-mistake-more-grammatical-points-bubbe-mayseh-apostates-and-the-zohar/ It advertises in the title that he will be showplacing another obvious mistake in R' Dov Eliach's book B'sod Siach. First bunch of paragraphs goes through some minor details in the book dropping snarky comments, and then finally - The Obvious Mistake. Read and enjoy.
"He begins by mentioning that in his book on the Vilna Gaon he told a story that before World War II, R. Aaron Kotler was not sure where he should go, Eretz Yisrael or the United States. He therefore performed the goral ha-Gra and Exodus 4:27 came up: “And the Lord said to Aaron: ‘Go into the wilderness to meet Moses.’” He understood this to refer to R. Moses Feinstein, who at the time was living in the spiritual wilderness of New York.
Eliach states that it has been established that this story is not correct, and he cites the grandsons of R. Kotler who told him that their grandfather was never in doubt about where he was to go. They also pointed out that there is no way that the name “Moses” could have been seen as a reference to R. Moses Feinstein who was not well-known at that time.
So far so good (and these points are so obvious that one wonders how Eliach fell for a typical yeshiva bubbe mayse[1]). However, Eliach continues, and it must be that he is citing something that he was told by one of the current Kotlers, but he has completely mangled it. He writes:
אם היה מקום לסיפור, הרי שהפוסק היותר ידוע בימים ההם באמריקה, היה הג“ר יוסף רוזין, נשיא “אגודת הרבנים דארצות הברית וקנדה“, ומחבר ספרי “נזר הקודש“.
Eliach tells us that if the story is true, it would have been with reference to R. Joseph Rosen, who was the most well-known posek in America at the time, the honorary president of Agudat ha-Rabbonim, and the author of the books entitled Nezer ha-Kodesh.
The first thing to ask is how could the goral ha-Gra performed by R. Kotler have anything to do with R. Joseph Rosen when the verse that came up mentioned “Moses”? How Eliach did not see this is beyond me. Furthermore, R. Joseph Rosen not only was not a well-known posek, he was not even a little-known posek. He was also not the president of Agudat ha-Rabbonim, and he never wrote a book called Nezer ha-Kodesh. The only thing of interest, and accurate, in Eliach’s discussion is that he somehow got a copy of the document appointing Rosen rabbi of Passaic, New Jersey, and he includes a picture of this in the book.
Here is what happened: Eliach was told that if the story of R. Aaron Kotler performing goral ha-Gra had any truth to it, the “Moses” referred to would have been R. Moses Rosen, who indeed was a great rav, author of Nezer ha-Kodesh, and served for a time as president of Agudat ha-Rabbonim.[2] R. Rosen is most famous for being the rabbi of Chweidan, Lithuania, where the Hazon Ish’s wife was from and where the Hazon Ish lived after getting married. R. Rosen and the Hazon Ish became close, and supposedly it was R. Rosen who first told R. Hayyim Ozer Grodzinski about the unknown genius, R. Abraham Isaiah Karelitz.[3] The Hazon Ish also proofread the volume of Nezer ha-Kodesh on Zevahim. This was published in Vilna in 1929 when R. Rosen was already living in the United States.[4]"
Amazing. Our ever vigilant academic researcher has found a typo in a book! The author meant to write Moshe Rosen and wrote Yosef Rosen instead!!! Hardy har!!! Let's write a blog post about it!!!
This is the genial, civil, nice guy Shapiro, who get's all indignant and insulted when people don't play nice when pointing out his own stupid mistakes. Of actual consequence...
(It's quite strange that our historian doesn't seem aware that R' Yosef Rosen was indeed a very well known scholar - the Rogatchover Gaon, which is obviously the cause of R. Eliach's slip up...)
“the Rivash quotes the statement of the philosopher specifically to debunk it.“
This is false. He quotes it in the context of his own struggle to understand the sefiros, and adds in that line for zest. He then says he presented his issue to a certain Gadol who explained to him the inyan.
That is NOT the same thing as quoting something to debunk it, which gives an impression that he thought it was ridiculous all along.
On that note, it makes perfect sense why Shapiro chose the Rivash here and not some random google search. The Rivash here is actively struggling with this problem.
And btw, he didn’t only provide two sources, he gave some in the footnotes before that, and quite understandably wanted the more sensational comparison to trinity on top.
I happen to disagree with you - strongly - about what would be the honest way to frame the Rivash, but for our purposes your point is irrelevant. Shapiro did not respond using your arguments, to the contrary his self defense assumed the exact opposite and he claims to have presented it accurately by my standard. Which is false, and that's what I commented on in the post.
There was nothing to respond to. Grossman asked a question that made absolutely no sense, leaving everyone scratching their head wondering if the chap can read. So Shapiro accurately pointed out that what he was being quoted as saying, that the Rivash supported the statement, is simply contrived. He had written nothing of the sort. He had quoted the philosopher, who as far as we know maintained his opinion on Kabbalah as quoted.
You want him to start bavarning new kashyos that were never asked? C’mon man. Should Grossman ask the question that’s bothering you Shapiro can then respond using my arguments and we can take it from there. He didn’t, so there isn’t any reason for him to do so.
I'm honestly not sure what you mean. Grossman accused him of misrepresenting the Rivash. You may be right that it was excusable, but Grossman's point is not at all outlandish.
How would anybody who did not see the Rivash inside and is not holding in the nuances of the sugya have not gotten the wrong impression from reading that page? I certainly did.
Shapiro could very easily have responded like you did. He chose not to. Instead he said Grossman's an idiot, anybody reading my words can see I wasn't implying the Rivash endorsed it. That answer assumes the exact opposite hanacha as your defense of him does. Pick one or the other.
In my post I dealt with his response, not yours. And his response is dishonest on its own terms. So I said so.
Next time, tell him to shut up and let you do the talking for him. You'd probably do a better job, and with less sheker too boot.
“Grossman accused him of misrepresenting the Rivash. You may be right that it was excusable, but Grossman's point is not at all outlandish.“
It wasn’t outlandish, it was flat out wrong. There is no starting point buddy.
You seem to think he meant to make your point. But that’s not what he wrote. At all. He put it as a vivid example as quote which upon examination says the exact opposite. He accurately pointed back that he didn’t quote the Rivash rather the philosopher.
Why would he have responded like I did? He wasn’t answering the same question. Yes it’s evident from his response that he’d disagree with your point too, but it’s totally unfair to call him out for not conceding it, when he was never asked it.
Maybe tell the good Rabbi the same. You’ll do the talking for him . You’d do a better job, and make a point that actually makes sense, and then we can talk about it.
I can’t believe R Grossman’s accusation that Shapiro made the same mistake as Kellner in misreading the Gemara, and that it’s curious that Shapiro wrote “when I wrote my book I didn’t know if anyone else who raised this question” when Kellner made the same mistake, didn’t make it onto the list of Grossmans mistakes.
And Shapiro’s response is very mild, he could’ve capitalized on this more if you ask me.
Maybe you’re saving it for a separate post of the “Colossal Failure” category?
I can't say you don't have a point. Shapiro is half right there. But he's also half [very] wrong, as I will be'H explain in an upcoming post. We can fight about it then.
I guess this categorizing business is not completely scientific. Shapiro is about 90 percent wrong (and quite vocally so) in his treatment of the Rav Hochman thing, yet I listed it as right because of a detail. So maybe this evens things out on the other side. But you are correct to point it out.
Off topic: this sentence is one of the best uses of capitalization I've seen in years: "But Shapiro did not set out to write an honest response to criticism. He set out to write a Final Response."
Really, really great post! Looking forward to more!
To me it speaks volumes that Shapiro is unhappy being identified with Spinoza. This means that he really thinks he is representing the true Jewish tradition. He, unlike Spinoza whose primary goal (eventually) was to undermine, feels like he actually knows better than the likes of R' Moshe Feinstein and R' Elchanan. I'm unsure how to feel about this. On the one hand, this means he is genuinely trying to be true to Hashem's Torah, and this I like. But that he can than so easily dismiss the true Lomdei Torah then shows that, in a way, he may be more lost than Spinoza, because he thinks he's authentic. As you said, "The transparent lack of self-awareness is sobering."
I want to also point out again (see: https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/the-art-of-the-rebuttal-part-1/comment/16491838) that Dr. Marc is way out of his league thinking he can discuss the Sefiros and what the Rambam would think of them when he doesn't know what the Rambam's opinion is about anything and I promise you, if he doesn't know the Rambam's opinion, he surely doesn't know what the Sefiros are. The Rambam would be very disappointed.
Do not fall prey to the deception. Spinoza would have called foul at being identified with Spinoza. Shapiro, Slifkin etc. are writing specifically to change the minds of the Yeshivesh world. For them, being lumped in as Kofer is a death knell for their pursuit. Trust me, it has nothing to do with representation of the true Jewish Tradition. If you conclusively demonstrated in their eyes that they had incorrectly attributed a position to a Rishon or Acharon, leaving them with no more representation within the mesorah, they would not be deterred one iota. The position would remain identical. They did not come to the position through a reading of the sources, so they will not leave the position in the absence of those sources. Their positions tend to be the most secular one's possible, and then "the computer searching for quotes to take out of context" games begin. It seems like you are new to this foray into the world of academic Torah, so this is just my fair warning. But, you seem like a smart guy so I am sure you will have this realization soon enough. At the 38th dishonest/bafflingly moronic take on a source you begin to rethink why you picked up Shapiro's latest manifesto. After realizing he has only quoted 39 up until this point, you realize that while its in your hand you may as well take it to the nearest garbage. Rationalist Traditionalist is doing his magic in bringing this to the public, but if RT wrote non-stop for another 3 years, he could not cover the absolute hack job that academics have done to proper Torah Study.
"Their positions tend to be the most secular one's possible,"
Whatever that even means.
"Shapiro, Slifkin etc. are writing specifically to change the minds of the Yeshivesh world. For them, being lumped in as Kofer is a death knell for their pursuit."
This is laughably false. Slifkin has been repeatedly labeled a kofer. His books were literally banned. Hasn't stopped him. And Shapiro wrote his article in the Torah U'madda journal, and publishes with Littman library. He writes in academic style which most yeshivish people wouldn't bother with unless they're intellectually curious to begin with. He writes for a wide ranging audience.
"they take great pleasure out of highlighting, even endorsing, the views that most align with whatever the mainstream liberal views are."
Shapiro doesn't. He calls it as he sees it. That doesn't mean he's right. But it's completely nuts to claim he's on some grand mission to slide everyone to the left.
"There is a good deal more to say about the phenomenon of Partnership Minyanim and the strange way they came about. Before Prof. Daniel Sperber got involved, the basis for them was an article written by an otherwise unknown rabbi in the Edah Journal. I can’t help but wonder about the halakhic methodology of changing traditional Jewish practice simply because a rabbi writes an article with some suggestions. If tomorrow a rabbi, any rabbi, writes an article arguing that in today’s day and age when men and women mix freely, that there is no need for a mehitzah in prayer (after all, it is not mentioned in the Shulhan Arukh), would that then give people carte blanche to remove the mehitzah? Had this not already been an issue between the Orthodox and Conservative, and thus of great symbolic significance, I am sure the mehitzah would already have been removed in liberal Orthodox synagogues. And what about counting women in the minyan? Halakhic arguments can be advanced for this as well. Is the only reason the liberal Orthodox don’t accept R. Ethan Tucker’s and R. Micha’el Rosenberg’s arguments[7] because of their non-affiliation with Orthodoxy? If an Orthodox rabbi had advanced the same argument as them, would it then be OK to move to complete halakhic egalitarianism?[8]"
Just read it. And as it turns out, I retract: Dr. Shapiro is NOT over his head in discussing the more esoteric stuff
...alone. He is over his head in discussing the Rambam altogether! His view of Rishonim is extremely black and white and simplistic. They were human > humans err > if we find errors it must be because he was human. The doctor ignores the possibility that Rambam was profoundly intelligent (not the choicest word, though true; it has more to do with being closer to the source) and *little me* doesn't reach a hundredth of his practically immortal genius (again, not the best word). Even his disputants held him in such high regard that they pored over his every word. The Gr'a humbly sat at his feet, as did even the Ramban, though they argued apologetically when necessary.
I guess it takes one to know one: The Gr'a experienced angelic perfection and true mastery of Talmud firsthand and (correctly) projected his perspective onto the Rambam; Dr. Marc never saw 'light' and projects his own human limitations on the Rambam. Anyone familiar with true greatness knows that despite being a prone to error, lowly human, one can transcend this mortality to the status of "hagiography".
In short, though the Rambam was human and did err, those who can't understand greatness should stick to history (he is a great historian!) and the like.
And the lazy use of sources that the Rambam wasn't so מדוייק coming from the Beis Yosef and company, which are in fact the words of people who held of the Rambam in the greatest esteem, unlike Shapiro who is twisting their scattered comments here and there to build a disparaging world view of the Rambam, I found that quite abhorrent.
Haha! I'm quite aware! What I generally enjoy about these books is the opportunity they provide for me to clearly articulate and define my disagreements...
I have not read that but I don't mean the Rambam's words. He probably read more of the Rambam's words many more times than me. But the internal message the Rambam really cared to share, that the world we see with our senses is but a distraction from the 'real' world, where one perceives truth for what it really is, I strongly contend from what I've seen from the good Doctor that he has no idea of what these things mean. See what I quoted from the Rambam in his Hakdama to the Moreh in that link
Btw if anyone is off put by my tone, "he doesn't know... about anything", I am representing the Rambam's own tremendous distaste for such ignorance, though I must humbly admit, he articulates it far more eloquently, for instance, as I've quoted, "Truth, in spite of all its powerful manifestations, is *completely* withheld from them..."
I always assumed "he's deliberately lying and being a sophist to mislead people because he hates truth/hates God/wants people to lose their עולם הבא or something like that" was the kind "Dan L'Kaf Zchus" one. The other option would be to think there is something wrong with Shapiro's brain. Should I start assuming the latter?
When the mistakes are so common, all one-sided (i.e. against the mainstream mesorah) and so egregious, the generosity required to assume they are "just" mistakes would make Avraham Avinu look like a miser.
And if the 'mistakes' are your mind-reading attempts to impute dishonesty to him for not quoting the rivash, you probably didn't make much of a point to begin with.
I agree. Plus Grossman's insinuation that Shapiro basically cribbed a bunch of sources and threw them together as some sort of failed messiah style 'takedown' of the Rambam. If someone's only knowledge of the book came through reading Grossman's review, they would probably think Shapiro was basically illiterate.
There also seems to be a feeling of betrayal on Shapiro's part. If Shapiro's recounting of events is accurate, (and I obviously can't know for certain either way) Grossman basically pretended to be interested in collaborating with him before then turning around and trying to destroy him. I suspect that if Grossman had written the review without playing that whole shell game, Shapiro might have been annoyed, but he wouldn't have been nearly so aggrieved. It would have been more akin to R Zev Leff's review of the book, which was pretty negative in ways which Shapiro claimed were unfair as well. Shapiro wrote a response to that one too; it was quite forceful, but not nearly as visceral.
“Grossman basically pretended to be interested in collaborating with him before then turning around and trying to destroy him.”
He asked him a few questions and he clarified them for him. Dr Shapiro is notably helpful in answering questions from many people, lots of whom he probably doesn’t know at all.
I happen not to think that Grossman's subterfuge was particularly necessary, but theoretically, if he felt that that was the best way to get Shapiro to reveal exactly the type of things he preaches to innocents who come to him for instruction, I see absolutely nothing wrong with what he did.
Adaraba v'adaraba, I would have very little respect for someone who allows some made up academic ethical standards stop him from exposing a maskil who confuses ikrei hadus for the unsuspecting masses.
If you think Shapiro is a meisis u'madiach, that would explain why you refuse to hear anything to the contrary. Ain toanin le'maysis etc. Thanks for clarifying.
"I happen not to think that Grossman's subterfuge was particularly necessary, but theoretically, if he felt that that was the best way to get Shapiro to reveal exactly the type of things he preaches to innocents who come to him for instruction, I see absolutely nothing wrong with what he did."
LOL. He didn't get him to 'reveal' anything. The guy is very open about his views. And Grossman doesn't seem to have gone to him for any sort of guidance which would have caused him to let his guard down. He emailed him a question which he said was for an article. Note that Grossman *himself says* that his quote from Shapiro is used with permission, so by Grossman's own telling, Shapiro wasn't trying to hide anything from the public
"Adaraba v'adaraba, I would have very little respect for someone who allows some made up academic ethical standards stop him from exposing a maskil who confuses ikrei hadus for the unsuspecting masses."
Nothing to do with academic standards. Just basic decency. Like don't lie about your motives. Just write the scurrilous article claiming Shapiro is an ignoramus who cribs his sources *without* spinning some yarn about what you're up to.
I honestly have no idea what your point in this comment is.
Right, I said I didn't think it was particularly necessary. So we're on the same page.
And, as I further said, theoretically if it were nogeia, when someone is leading other Yidden to take ikrei emuna less seriously than they should, then yes I'd consider someone a rotten person with a perverted sense of balance if you let some arbitrary social nicety - call it an "ethical standard" or "human decency" or whatever you want - get in the way of exposing that and warning people about it.
If you disagree with this ok. I honestly don't care what you think.
If you don't, then the only question is if that description fits Marc Shapiro. Rabbi Grossman thinks it does. You apparently don't. As it happens, Grossman is right and you're wrong, but never mind - that's a totally different discussion and has nothing to do with this particular comment.
So I have no idea what your point is. But that's ok, I'll be fine.
Shapiro used that term, but I won't quibble about the exact phraseology. He felt mistreated, deceived, or whatever other adjective you prefer. The point is the same regardless.
Grossman did correspond with me and ask me questions which I tried to the best of my ability to answer. He also challenged some of what I said in his emails to me. Yet I have to say that I am quite hurt that he was not honest with me in this correspondence. On July 16, 2018, he began his correspondence with me by telling me that he was writing an article on the Thirteen Principles. In this email he also said that my book was well-written. (Buttering me up, I guess.) On July 17 he wrote to me: “Thank you for your communication! You are helping me tremendously.” I guess I was helping him to bury me. Also on this day he wrote to me about his article: “maybe you can help me with the writing!” I am sorry to see now that this was all part of a grand deception on his part.
In his email to me of October 11, 2018, Grossman wrote that he completed his article on the Thirteen Principles, “and have cited you in a few places.” Is this how an honest scholar operates, by deceiving the person he has been emailing with? I responded to his questions and explained how I view things, as I do with anyone who contacts me. I would have done the same thing had he been honest with me and told me that he was writing an article devoted to disputing my ideas. His friendly demeanor in his emails led me to assume that we were engaged in a form of scholarly collaboration in trying to understand important texts and ideas. So imagine my surprise to see that contrary to what he wrote to me that he cited me “in a few places,” the entire review is an attempt to tear me down. Furthermore, Grossman has been telling people that he wants his article to destroy my reputation as a scholar. What type of person treats his fellow Jew in this fashion?"
"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."
I agree with this up to a point.
https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/709863/rabbi-yitzchak-blau/07-flexibility-with-a-firm-foundation-on-maintaining-jewish-dogma/
"On the book’s last page, Shapiro writes of the book’s significance in
the context of reigning trends in Orthodoxy. “Together with the turn to
the right in Orthodoxy, which has led to an increasing stringency in
many areas of halakhah, an ever increasing dogmatism in matters of
belief is also apparent” (p. 158). Shapiro apparently sees this volume as
an important resource against this dogmatism, and indeed it is. If R.
Joseph B. Soloveitchik can be accused of heresy for writing that secular
Zionists acquired the land of Israel through building an altar of factories
(a homiletic expression of their dedication)3 and if Rav Kook can be
termed a well known heretic,4 then the misuse of the term “heresy” has
gotten out of hand. More recent misuse of the term “heresy” includes
attacks on the revadim approach to gemara learning5 and the banning of
books that portray the human dimension of biblical heroes.6 Yahadut
can accommodate a good deal of diverse opinion and even sharp debate
without anyone being branded a kofer.
However, Shapiro makes no reference to a danger found on the
opposing point of the Orthodox spectrum. Under the influence of modern relativism and epistemological skeptics, many contemporary writers
attempt to deny the significance of dogmas in Judaism altogether.
Tamar Ross argues that Rav Kook views Jewish beliefs as having only
instrumental value but not as cognitive truths.7 She argues for a position
in which we view Buddhism, Christianity and Islam as equal tions of the same truth as Judaism.8 Menachem Kellner published a
book arguing that beliefs are not a basis for deciding who is part of the
religious community.9 In a more quixotic venture, Aryeh Botwinick
tries to identify Rambam’s negative theology with post-modern skepticism.10 Gili Zivan explores the post-modern implications of contemporary Jewish theologians who despair of the notion of objective truth.11
David Singer compares David Berger to Torquemada for arguing that
the idea of a messiah having a second coming in order to fulfill the messianic prophecies is beyond the pale.12 While it is difficult to estimate the
influence of these writers, I think it fair to say that the liberal edge of
Orthodoxy is tempted by this position. Self-referential usage of the term
“halakhic” in place of “Orthodox” may reflect this ideology.13 No doubt,
adherents of the Orthoprax approach will be quick to utilize Shapiro’s
work as a support. Had Shapiro also kept this second extreme in mind
and taken steps to more forcefully combat it, he would have written a
better book."
======
The problem is that it indeed cuts both ways. And who counts as a traditionalist in good standing seems to shrink by the day.
Also, does Shapiro get 'credit' for emphatically rejecting and debunking the notion that there's no such thing as any dogma whatsoever within Judaism (pages 29-31)? Keep in mind that for many of his readers, there's no guarantee that the alternative to Shapiro would be the Chazon Ish or R Moshe Feinstein, rather than Yitz Greenberg, David Hartman, or Zalman Shechter-Shalomi.
I've always found the first half of Rabbi Blau's rather forced dichotomy to be an exercise in channeling Amelia Bedilia. Welcome to the wonderful world of colloquialisms buddy - yes, sometimes the word "kefira" is used in the sense of "anathema", not necessarily to describe something as literal halachic heresy.
At any rate, your argument here is difficult to accept. It's not like Shapiro is saying something that's merely "nisht fun unzereh hashkafa". He's advocating that we need not take the yud gimel ikarei emunah too seriously - "the lesson for the moderns is clear" and all of that. I cannot think of a more literal definition of kefira and hasata. So I find it impossible to imagine a justification, no matter where his followers are coming from.
"Welcome to the wonderful world of colloquialisms buddy - yes, sometimes the word "kefira" is used in the sense of "anathema", not necessarily to describe something as literal halachic heresy."
Kind of like saying that everyone accepted yud gimmel ikkarim.
"He's advocating that we need not take the yud gimel ikarei emunah too seriously - "the lesson for the moderns is clear"
Not less seriously. Just not as a bludgeon.
"and all of that"
I.e. what he says in the paragraph leading up to your quote.
"I cannot think of a more literal definition of kefira and hasata."
I certainly can. I can link to some if you'd like. I'd rather not. But if you insist....
"The lesson for moderns is clear"- meaning that he disputes Rabbi Parnes's assertion that we must place strict limits of inquiry into areas that may undermine the יג עקרי אמונה. Shapiro is of the opinion that we should allow inquiry into areas that may undermine the יג עקרי אמונה, because you see, he doesn't think they are determinative of heresy. And boy oh boy does he go ahead and undermine them. Especially Torah m'Shamayim. This characterizes every article of his on this subject that I read, as well as other articles, like "IS MODERN ORTHODOXY MOVING TOWARDS AN ACCEPTANCE OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM?" (see page 2 where he cites Limits). So I agree with RT, Shapiro is very close to a meisis and mediach if not literally one.
"So I agree with RT, Shapiro is very close to a meisis and mediach if not literally one."
I disagree, obviously. But I don't see much point in arguing further.
At any rate, here's another article by Shapiro, in case you're running short of material.....
https://thelehrhaus.com/commentary/confronting-biblical-criticism-a-review-essay/
This part was funny-
"On the previous page, Student elaborates on Maimonides’ reasons for rejecting Aristotle’s view of the eternity of the universe. Maimonides notes that Aristotle was never able to prove his point, and he also states that if Aristotle’s position is true, then Judaism as we know it would be rendered meaningless (Guide of the Perplexed 2:25). Yet if Aristotle’s viewpoint was actually proven, can we really believe that Maimonides would have rejected Judaism entirely? It is much more likely that he would have reinterpreted the traditional belief in accord with the new proven knowledge (and the emphasis is on “proven”). After all, Maimonides tells us that the creation narrative of the Torah can be reinterpreted in accord with Aristotle’s position, but basic theological reasons prevent us from doing so. I assume Student has the same approach when it comes to biblical criticism. If one of its major points were proven, by which I mean an actual proof that all could accept, would this mean the end of Judaism? As R. Immanuel Jakobovits once told me, the answer is absolutely no. As far as R. Jakobovits was concerned—and would anyone disagree?—the only result of the new evidence would be that the traditional belief would have to be reformulated."
Hahaha, he really doesn't understand our way of thinking at all.
This part was interesting
" Student’s instinct is correct, and now is a good place to quote from Jacobs’ letter to me dated September 27, 1987, in which we see, among other interesting things, that Jacobs indeed affirmed an actual revelatory event at Sinai.
On revelation there is much to discuss. For the moment I am a little puzzled by what you mean when you write about “the physical revelation”. Do you mean the thunder and lightning? I do not deny that something of this sort took place, although how could one know, but believe that it is of no relevance. But I do believe in Torah min ha-Shamayyim and here would agree that without this belief Judaism makes little sense as a religion. Indeed, what I and many others have been trying to do is to defend the doctrine of Torah min ha-Shamayyim by trying to show that it need not be understood in a fundamentalist manner. Thus I am far from “denying any original Torah,” as you put it. On the contrary, the Torah for me is the whole process, in which there is a human element but also a divine element. Your remarks about how do I know that Judaism has more truth than other religions can just as easily be turned against you. How do you know that there was an “original” physical revelation? The Hindus deny that it ever took place. You believe that Judaism is more true than other religions because you are a believer in the Torah and I am also a believer in the Torah. Surely your logic is at fault in this argument."
I wish we had the letter that Shapiro sent him, but it sounds like Shapiro believed at some point that Torah M'Sinai proves the truth of Judaism.
As a tangent to a tangent, Menachem Kellner is a whole lot more obnoxious than Shapiro will ever be.
https://www.academia.edu/36128130/Menachem_Kellner_On_Reading_Rambam_in_Brooklyn_and_in_Haifa_Hakirah_vol_11_Spring_2011_225_233
"Rabbi Buchman is not the first person to (mis)read Rambam as
he does. There is a long history of Jews looking at what Rambam
wrote and responding: “This is Greek to me! It is not possible that
Rambam actually believed these things.” Taking the Orthodoxy of
their day as determining what Rambam must have meant, these interpreters have forced Rambam’s text to mean whatever they think
Judaism (as they claim to understand it) teaches."
"[Rabbi Buchman]'s criticisms of some of my scholarship reminded me of several experiences I have had. Some years ago, I had the privilege of participating in a Jewish Christian-Shi’ite religious “conversation” outside of Lucerne, Switzerland. Many of the Muslim participants in the event were leading Ayatollahs from Iran. They proved themselves to be far more cultured, urbane, and sophisticated than one would expect from the
image of Iranian ayatollahs to which we are usually exposed. I
found it both striking and amusing that they saw themselves, not as the intellectual descendants of medieval rationalist Muslim theologians known as Muatazilites (known to readers of Hakirah from
Guide of the Perplexed III.17), but as still engaged in their debates, as
if 800 years had not passed. They were still angry with the Asherites
(doctrinaire orthodox opponents of the Muatazilites) for misrepresenting Islam. Unlike Islam, Judaism has developed a linear tradition of interpretation (such as geonim, rishonim, aharonim) and a sense of its own history. Muslims are still in the original period.
Some Haredi thinkers treat Judaism in much the same fashion as
the Muslim theologians whom I met (while also insisting on yeridat
ha-dorot3). Opposed to this is the historical approach which characterizes the academic study of Judaism and about which Modern Orthodoxy seems to me to be somewhat schizophrenic."
"Jews have responded in many ways to the challenge implicit in
Rambam’s writings. At first, an attempt was made to throw him
out of the dormitory. When that failed, the next step was basically
to ignore what he said.17 Given the plethora of editions and translations of his works in the modern world, not to mention the literally thousands of articles and books written about him, that has grown ever more difficult. One option is to decide that since he is obviously still in the dormitory, he must agree with what all the other denizens of that dormitory think—that is Asher Benzion Buchman’s
approach, an approach that involves forcing Rambam’s square peg
into round holes. Another approach, truer to Rambam, is to acknowledge that the dormitory has more rooms than is often
thought. "
"It is striking that the “yeshiva world” has yet to produce a single translation of or commentary on the Guide of the Perplexed. There is not even a “yeshivish” edition of Samuel ibn Tibbon’s medieval translation of the Guide of the Perplexed."
=====
Rabbi Buchman's reply is a great read as well.
https://hakirah.org/Vol%2011%20Buchman%20on%20Kellner.pdf
"As R. Immanuel Jakobovits once told me, the answer is absolutely no. As far as R. Jakobovits was concerned—and would anyone disagree?—the only result of the new evidence would be that the traditional belief would have to be reformulated."
Personally, I'm more interested in what R. Immanuel Jakobovits told Shapiro than whatever Jacobs did.
"but it sounds like Shapiro believed at some point that Torah M'Sinai proves the truth of Judaism."
Meaning what? That if you believe in the former, the latter follows? That's pretty much true by definition. (Jacobs 'redefined' torah misinai out of existence, but that's a whole different level of kefira, which basically makes things mean whatever one wants them to mean.)
Nothing to do with anything, I was just reading through some blog post by Dr. Shapiro and found the following passage both hilarious and demonstrative. The post is here: https://seforimblog.com/2019/01/another-obvious-mistake-more-grammatical-points-bubbe-mayseh-apostates-and-the-zohar/ It advertises in the title that he will be showplacing another obvious mistake in R' Dov Eliach's book B'sod Siach. First bunch of paragraphs goes through some minor details in the book dropping snarky comments, and then finally - The Obvious Mistake. Read and enjoy.
"He begins by mentioning that in his book on the Vilna Gaon he told a story that before World War II, R. Aaron Kotler was not sure where he should go, Eretz Yisrael or the United States. He therefore performed the goral ha-Gra and Exodus 4:27 came up: “And the Lord said to Aaron: ‘Go into the wilderness to meet Moses.’” He understood this to refer to R. Moses Feinstein, who at the time was living in the spiritual wilderness of New York.
Eliach states that it has been established that this story is not correct, and he cites the grandsons of R. Kotler who told him that their grandfather was never in doubt about where he was to go. They also pointed out that there is no way that the name “Moses” could have been seen as a reference to R. Moses Feinstein who was not well-known at that time.
So far so good (and these points are so obvious that one wonders how Eliach fell for a typical yeshiva bubbe mayse[1]). However, Eliach continues, and it must be that he is citing something that he was told by one of the current Kotlers, but he has completely mangled it. He writes:
אם היה מקום לסיפור, הרי שהפוסק היותר ידוע בימים ההם באמריקה, היה הג“ר יוסף רוזין, נשיא “אגודת הרבנים דארצות הברית וקנדה“, ומחבר ספרי “נזר הקודש“.
Eliach tells us that if the story is true, it would have been with reference to R. Joseph Rosen, who was the most well-known posek in America at the time, the honorary president of Agudat ha-Rabbonim, and the author of the books entitled Nezer ha-Kodesh.
The first thing to ask is how could the goral ha-Gra performed by R. Kotler have anything to do with R. Joseph Rosen when the verse that came up mentioned “Moses”? How Eliach did not see this is beyond me. Furthermore, R. Joseph Rosen not only was not a well-known posek, he was not even a little-known posek. He was also not the president of Agudat ha-Rabbonim, and he never wrote a book called Nezer ha-Kodesh. The only thing of interest, and accurate, in Eliach’s discussion is that he somehow got a copy of the document appointing Rosen rabbi of Passaic, New Jersey, and he includes a picture of this in the book.
Here is what happened: Eliach was told that if the story of R. Aaron Kotler performing goral ha-Gra had any truth to it, the “Moses” referred to would have been R. Moses Rosen, who indeed was a great rav, author of Nezer ha-Kodesh, and served for a time as president of Agudat ha-Rabbonim.[2] R. Rosen is most famous for being the rabbi of Chweidan, Lithuania, where the Hazon Ish’s wife was from and where the Hazon Ish lived after getting married. R. Rosen and the Hazon Ish became close, and supposedly it was R. Rosen who first told R. Hayyim Ozer Grodzinski about the unknown genius, R. Abraham Isaiah Karelitz.[3] The Hazon Ish also proofread the volume of Nezer ha-Kodesh on Zevahim. This was published in Vilna in 1929 when R. Rosen was already living in the United States.[4]"
Amazing. Our ever vigilant academic researcher has found a typo in a book! The author meant to write Moshe Rosen and wrote Yosef Rosen instead!!! Hardy har!!! Let's write a blog post about it!!!
This is the genial, civil, nice guy Shapiro, who get's all indignant and insulted when people don't play nice when pointing out his own stupid mistakes. Of actual consequence...
(It's quite strange that our historian doesn't seem aware that R' Yosef Rosen was indeed a very well known scholar - the Rogatchover Gaon, which is obviously the cause of R. Eliach's slip up...)
Anyway, כבר קדמוהו רבנן
http://forum.otzar.org/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=4228&p=453724&hilit=%D7%9E%D7%A9%D7%94+%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%96%D7%99%D7%9F&sid=cb5f489f483b3b0d7a266bd8d9ba2aa8#p453724
I agree he’s making a bigger deal than it is, but it isn’t just a typo, as noted in the comments:
Lazer says:
January 20, 2019 at 11:00 pm
I think you are taking a simple printing mistake to a whole new level.
He obviously meant Moshe Rozen. However the more famous “Rozen” is Yosef Rozen which is the Ragotchover Goan and therefore it got mixed up.
I highly doubt he actually meant Yosef Rozen who wrote Nezer Hakodesh.
Reply
Levi Yitzchok says:
January 21, 2019 at 7:10 am
If he didn’t mean R’ Yosef Rosen then why did he print an image of the Ksav Rabbanus of R’ Yosef Rosen from the city of Passaic
“the Rivash quotes the statement of the philosopher specifically to debunk it.“
This is false. He quotes it in the context of his own struggle to understand the sefiros, and adds in that line for zest. He then says he presented his issue to a certain Gadol who explained to him the inyan.
That is NOT the same thing as quoting something to debunk it, which gives an impression that he thought it was ridiculous all along.
On that note, it makes perfect sense why Shapiro chose the Rivash here and not some random google search. The Rivash here is actively struggling with this problem.
And btw, he didn’t only provide two sources, he gave some in the footnotes before that, and quite understandably wanted the more sensational comparison to trinity on top.
That whole thing is a nothingburger. Next.
I happen to disagree with you - strongly - about what would be the honest way to frame the Rivash, but for our purposes your point is irrelevant. Shapiro did not respond using your arguments, to the contrary his self defense assumed the exact opposite and he claims to have presented it accurately by my standard. Which is false, and that's what I commented on in the post.
There was nothing to respond to. Grossman asked a question that made absolutely no sense, leaving everyone scratching their head wondering if the chap can read. So Shapiro accurately pointed out that what he was being quoted as saying, that the Rivash supported the statement, is simply contrived. He had written nothing of the sort. He had quoted the philosopher, who as far as we know maintained his opinion on Kabbalah as quoted.
You want him to start bavarning new kashyos that were never asked? C’mon man. Should Grossman ask the question that’s bothering you Shapiro can then respond using my arguments and we can take it from there. He didn’t, so there isn’t any reason for him to do so.
I'm honestly not sure what you mean. Grossman accused him of misrepresenting the Rivash. You may be right that it was excusable, but Grossman's point is not at all outlandish.
How would anybody who did not see the Rivash inside and is not holding in the nuances of the sugya have not gotten the wrong impression from reading that page? I certainly did.
Shapiro could very easily have responded like you did. He chose not to. Instead he said Grossman's an idiot, anybody reading my words can see I wasn't implying the Rivash endorsed it. That answer assumes the exact opposite hanacha as your defense of him does. Pick one or the other.
In my post I dealt with his response, not yours. And his response is dishonest on its own terms. So I said so.
Next time, tell him to shut up and let you do the talking for him. You'd probably do a better job, and with less sheker too boot.
But then I'd be out of a gig, so maybe don't.
“Grossman accused him of misrepresenting the Rivash. You may be right that it was excusable, but Grossman's point is not at all outlandish.“
It wasn’t outlandish, it was flat out wrong. There is no starting point buddy.
You seem to think he meant to make your point. But that’s not what he wrote. At all. He put it as a vivid example as quote which upon examination says the exact opposite. He accurately pointed back that he didn’t quote the Rivash rather the philosopher.
Why would he have responded like I did? He wasn’t answering the same question. Yes it’s evident from his response that he’d disagree with your point too, but it’s totally unfair to call him out for not conceding it, when he was never asked it.
Maybe tell the good Rabbi the same. You’ll do the talking for him . You’d do a better job, and make a point that actually makes sense, and then we can talk about it.
I can’t believe R Grossman’s accusation that Shapiro made the same mistake as Kellner in misreading the Gemara, and that it’s curious that Shapiro wrote “when I wrote my book I didn’t know if anyone else who raised this question” when Kellner made the same mistake, didn’t make it onto the list of Grossmans mistakes.
And Shapiro’s response is very mild, he could’ve capitalized on this more if you ask me.
Maybe you’re saving it for a separate post of the “Colossal Failure” category?
I can't say you don't have a point. Shapiro is half right there. But he's also half [very] wrong, as I will be'H explain in an upcoming post. We can fight about it then.
I guess this categorizing business is not completely scientific. Shapiro is about 90 percent wrong (and quite vocally so) in his treatment of the Rav Hochman thing, yet I listed it as right because of a detail. So maybe this evens things out on the other side. But you are correct to point it out.
Off topic: this sentence is one of the best uses of capitalization I've seen in years: "But Shapiro did not set out to write an honest response to criticism. He set out to write a Final Response."
Rav Fisher asking that people refrain from publishing hagada or hashkafa ideas in his name unless they were prescreened by his sons.
I assume you mean halacha
Would you like someone to point out a couple typos?
Otherwise, excellent work. It was mechazeik.
Thanks. I'm always game for some typo corrections.
Really, really great post! Looking forward to more!
To me it speaks volumes that Shapiro is unhappy being identified with Spinoza. This means that he really thinks he is representing the true Jewish tradition. He, unlike Spinoza whose primary goal (eventually) was to undermine, feels like he actually knows better than the likes of R' Moshe Feinstein and R' Elchanan. I'm unsure how to feel about this. On the one hand, this means he is genuinely trying to be true to Hashem's Torah, and this I like. But that he can than so easily dismiss the true Lomdei Torah then shows that, in a way, he may be more lost than Spinoza, because he thinks he's authentic. As you said, "The transparent lack of self-awareness is sobering."
I want to also point out again (see: https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/the-art-of-the-rebuttal-part-1/comment/16491838) that Dr. Marc is way out of his league thinking he can discuss the Sefiros and what the Rambam would think of them when he doesn't know what the Rambam's opinion is about anything and I promise you, if he doesn't know the Rambam's opinion, he surely doesn't know what the Sefiros are. The Rambam would be very disappointed.
Do not fall prey to the deception. Spinoza would have called foul at being identified with Spinoza. Shapiro, Slifkin etc. are writing specifically to change the minds of the Yeshivesh world. For them, being lumped in as Kofer is a death knell for their pursuit. Trust me, it has nothing to do with representation of the true Jewish Tradition. If you conclusively demonstrated in their eyes that they had incorrectly attributed a position to a Rishon or Acharon, leaving them with no more representation within the mesorah, they would not be deterred one iota. The position would remain identical. They did not come to the position through a reading of the sources, so they will not leave the position in the absence of those sources. Their positions tend to be the most secular one's possible, and then "the computer searching for quotes to take out of context" games begin. It seems like you are new to this foray into the world of academic Torah, so this is just my fair warning. But, you seem like a smart guy so I am sure you will have this realization soon enough. At the 38th dishonest/bafflingly moronic take on a source you begin to rethink why you picked up Shapiro's latest manifesto. After realizing he has only quoted 39 up until this point, you realize that while its in your hand you may as well take it to the nearest garbage. Rationalist Traditionalist is doing his magic in bringing this to the public, but if RT wrote non-stop for another 3 years, he could not cover the absolute hack job that academics have done to proper Torah Study.
I just wonder. I usually tend to assume ignorance over malice. Though I'm not sure which is more harmful, especially to the public.
If you could actually get into his mind, which do you think you would find?
"Trust me...."
Who are you, and why should we?
"Their positions tend to be the most secular one's possible,"
Whatever that even means.
"Shapiro, Slifkin etc. are writing specifically to change the minds of the Yeshivesh world. For them, being lumped in as Kofer is a death knell for their pursuit."
This is laughably false. Slifkin has been repeatedly labeled a kofer. His books were literally banned. Hasn't stopped him. And Shapiro wrote his article in the Torah U'madda journal, and publishes with Littman library. He writes in academic style which most yeshivish people wouldn't bother with unless they're intellectually curious to begin with. He writes for a wide ranging audience.
"they take great pleasure out of highlighting, even endorsing, the views that most align with whatever the mainstream liberal views are."
Shapiro doesn't. He calls it as he sees it. That doesn't mean he's right. But it's completely nuts to claim he's on some grand mission to slide everyone to the left.
https://seforimblog.com/2013/05/partnership-minyanim-and-more/?print=print
"There is a good deal more to say about the phenomenon of Partnership Minyanim and the strange way they came about. Before Prof. Daniel Sperber got involved, the basis for them was an article written by an otherwise unknown rabbi in the Edah Journal. I can’t help but wonder about the halakhic methodology of changing traditional Jewish practice simply because a rabbi writes an article with some suggestions. If tomorrow a rabbi, any rabbi, writes an article arguing that in today’s day and age when men and women mix freely, that there is no need for a mehitzah in prayer (after all, it is not mentioned in the Shulhan Arukh), would that then give people carte blanche to remove the mehitzah? Had this not already been an issue between the Orthodox and Conservative, and thus of great symbolic significance, I am sure the mehitzah would already have been removed in liberal Orthodox synagogues. And what about counting women in the minyan? Halakhic arguments can be advanced for this as well. Is the only reason the liberal Orthodox don’t accept R. Ethan Tucker’s and R. Micha’el Rosenberg’s arguments[7] because of their non-affiliation with Orthodoxy? If an Orthodox rabbi had advanced the same argument as them, would it then be OK to move to complete halakhic egalitarianism?[8]"
The fact that there are people to his left, and that he sometimes has mild criticism for them, does not change his status as an apologist for LWMO
It doesn't change it because it wasn't true to begin with.
“he doesn't know what the Rambam's opinion is about anything“
Have you read his Studies in Maimonides and His Interpreters”?
Just read it. And as it turns out, I retract: Dr. Shapiro is NOT over his head in discussing the more esoteric stuff
...alone. He is over his head in discussing the Rambam altogether! His view of Rishonim is extremely black and white and simplistic. They were human > humans err > if we find errors it must be because he was human. The doctor ignores the possibility that Rambam was profoundly intelligent (not the choicest word, though true; it has more to do with being closer to the source) and *little me* doesn't reach a hundredth of his practically immortal genius (again, not the best word). Even his disputants held him in such high regard that they pored over his every word. The Gr'a humbly sat at his feet, as did even the Ramban, though they argued apologetically when necessary.
I guess it takes one to know one: The Gr'a experienced angelic perfection and true mastery of Talmud firsthand and (correctly) projected his perspective onto the Rambam; Dr. Marc never saw 'light' and projects his own human limitations on the Rambam. Anyone familiar with true greatness knows that despite being a prone to error, lowly human, one can transcend this mortality to the status of "hagiography".
In short, though the Rambam was human and did err, those who can't understand greatness should stick to history (he is a great historian!) and the like.
Btw, he does make some very valid points about our approach, nothing too novel to me. It's his general idea and attitude that I don't like.
Rabbi Buchman has an excellent review of the book in Hakira that you’d appreciate.
Thanks, I enjoyed!
And the lazy use of sources that the Rambam wasn't so מדוייק coming from the Beis Yosef and company, which are in fact the words of people who held of the Rambam in the greatest esteem, unlike Shapiro who is twisting their scattered comments here and there to build a disparaging world view of the Rambam, I found that quite abhorrent.
Just ordered it, looking forward!
Lol, you are gonna regret that optimism.
Haha! I'm quite aware! What I generally enjoy about these books is the opportunity they provide for me to clearly articulate and define my disagreements...
Did you read it?
I have not read that but I don't mean the Rambam's words. He probably read more of the Rambam's words many more times than me. But the internal message the Rambam really cared to share, that the world we see with our senses is but a distraction from the 'real' world, where one perceives truth for what it really is, I strongly contend from what I've seen from the good Doctor that he has no idea of what these things mean. See what I quoted from the Rambam in his Hakdama to the Moreh in that link
Btw if anyone is off put by my tone, "he doesn't know... about anything", I am representing the Rambam's own tremendous distaste for such ignorance, though I must humbly admit, he articulates it far more eloquently, for instance, as I've quoted, "Truth, in spite of all its powerful manifestations, is *completely* withheld from them..."
I always assumed "he's deliberately lying and being a sophist to mislead people because he hates truth/hates God/wants people to lose their עולם הבא or something like that" was the kind "Dan L'Kaf Zchus" one. The other option would be to think there is something wrong with Shapiro's brain. Should I start assuming the latter?
Maybe you should just stop thinking about him altogether if you get so worked up into a lather talking about him.
When the mistakes are so common, all one-sided (i.e. against the mainstream mesorah) and so egregious, the generosity required to assume they are "just" mistakes would make Avraham Avinu look like a miser.
If I find significantly less mistakes, it proves my point. If I find a remotely equal amount of mistakes, this dude needs a new day job.
And if the 'mistakes' are your mind-reading attempts to impute dishonesty to him for not quoting the rivash, you probably didn't make much of a point to begin with.
I agree. Plus Grossman's insinuation that Shapiro basically cribbed a bunch of sources and threw them together as some sort of failed messiah style 'takedown' of the Rambam. If someone's only knowledge of the book came through reading Grossman's review, they would probably think Shapiro was basically illiterate.
There also seems to be a feeling of betrayal on Shapiro's part. If Shapiro's recounting of events is accurate, (and I obviously can't know for certain either way) Grossman basically pretended to be interested in collaborating with him before then turning around and trying to destroy him. I suspect that if Grossman had written the review without playing that whole shell game, Shapiro might have been annoyed, but he wouldn't have been nearly so aggrieved. It would have been more akin to R Zev Leff's review of the book, which was pretty negative in ways which Shapiro claimed were unfair as well. Shapiro wrote a response to that one too; it was quite forceful, but not nearly as visceral.
“Grossman basically pretended to be interested in collaborating with him before then turning around and trying to destroy him.”
He asked him a few questions and he clarified them for him. Dr Shapiro is notably helpful in answering questions from many people, lots of whom he probably doesn’t know at all.
I wouldn’t call call “collaborating”.
Machminim al meisis u'madiach (San. 67a).
I happen not to think that Grossman's subterfuge was particularly necessary, but theoretically, if he felt that that was the best way to get Shapiro to reveal exactly the type of things he preaches to innocents who come to him for instruction, I see absolutely nothing wrong with what he did.
Adaraba v'adaraba, I would have very little respect for someone who allows some made up academic ethical standards stop him from exposing a maskil who confuses ikrei hadus for the unsuspecting masses.
"Machminim al meisis u'madiach (San. 67a)."
If you think Shapiro is a meisis u'madiach, that would explain why you refuse to hear anything to the contrary. Ain toanin le'maysis etc. Thanks for clarifying.
"I happen not to think that Grossman's subterfuge was particularly necessary, but theoretically, if he felt that that was the best way to get Shapiro to reveal exactly the type of things he preaches to innocents who come to him for instruction, I see absolutely nothing wrong with what he did."
LOL. He didn't get him to 'reveal' anything. The guy is very open about his views. And Grossman doesn't seem to have gone to him for any sort of guidance which would have caused him to let his guard down. He emailed him a question which he said was for an article. Note that Grossman *himself says* that his quote from Shapiro is used with permission, so by Grossman's own telling, Shapiro wasn't trying to hide anything from the public
"Adaraba v'adaraba, I would have very little respect for someone who allows some made up academic ethical standards stop him from exposing a maskil who confuses ikrei hadus for the unsuspecting masses."
Nothing to do with academic standards. Just basic decency. Like don't lie about your motives. Just write the scurrilous article claiming Shapiro is an ignoramus who cribs his sources *without* spinning some yarn about what you're up to.
I honestly have no idea what your point in this comment is.
Right, I said I didn't think it was particularly necessary. So we're on the same page.
And, as I further said, theoretically if it were nogeia, when someone is leading other Yidden to take ikrei emuna less seriously than they should, then yes I'd consider someone a rotten person with a perverted sense of balance if you let some arbitrary social nicety - call it an "ethical standard" or "human decency" or whatever you want - get in the way of exposing that and warning people about it.
If you disagree with this ok. I honestly don't care what you think.
If you don't, then the only question is if that description fits Marc Shapiro. Rabbi Grossman thinks it does. You apparently don't. As it happens, Grossman is right and you're wrong, but never mind - that's a totally different discussion and has nothing to do with this particular comment.
So I have no idea what your point is. But that's ok, I'll be fine.
"So I have no idea what your point is. But that's ok, I'll be fine."
Same. Glad we're on the same page.
"harmful for the masses"? No. Harmful for everyone, ecause is advocates כפירה!
Shapiro used that term, but I won't quibble about the exact phraseology. He felt mistreated, deceived, or whatever other adjective you prefer. The point is the same regardless.
Here's the quote:
https://seforimblog.com/2020/02/cemeteries-and-response-to-criticism/
Grossman did correspond with me and ask me questions which I tried to the best of my ability to answer. He also challenged some of what I said in his emails to me. Yet I have to say that I am quite hurt that he was not honest with me in this correspondence. On July 16, 2018, he began his correspondence with me by telling me that he was writing an article on the Thirteen Principles. In this email he also said that my book was well-written. (Buttering me up, I guess.) On July 17 he wrote to me: “Thank you for your communication! You are helping me tremendously.” I guess I was helping him to bury me. Also on this day he wrote to me about his article: “maybe you can help me with the writing!” I am sorry to see now that this was all part of a grand deception on his part.
In his email to me of October 11, 2018, Grossman wrote that he completed his article on the Thirteen Principles, “and have cited you in a few places.” Is this how an honest scholar operates, by deceiving the person he has been emailing with? I responded to his questions and explained how I view things, as I do with anyone who contacts me. I would have done the same thing had he been honest with me and told me that he was writing an article devoted to disputing my ideas. His friendly demeanor in his emails led me to assume that we were engaged in a form of scholarly collaboration in trying to understand important texts and ideas. So imagine my surprise to see that contrary to what he wrote to me that he cited me “in a few places,” the entire review is an attempt to tear me down. Furthermore, Grossman has been telling people that he wants his article to destroy my reputation as a scholar. What type of person treats his fellow Jew in this fashion?"