"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.
“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.
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?
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.
"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.
“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.
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?
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.
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.