The Art of the Rebuttal, Part 3

TMI: The page-turning tale of an over-instructed convert

We continue our assessment of Dr. Shapiro’s Final Response to R. Herschel Grossman (see Part 1, here, and Part 2 here).

Introduction

As we make our way through the Final Response, we encounter the following passage:

“Pp. 166-167. Readers should see my discussion here. I cite a number of sources that support what I say, and thus contrary to what Grossman states, I do not just insist on my right to offer an interpretation. In note 21 Grossman writes: “Dr. Shapiro attempts to salvage his theory by speculating that the Vilna Gaon may not have really meant what he wrote.” Readers can turn to my discussion here and will see that I never said that.”

Unless you’ve been keeping careful track from the beginning, clicking these links (both of which go to the same place) will likely leave you as much in the dark as you were before you clicked them. The topic is interesting as well as extraordinarily demonstrative, so we will try to present it here as clearly and thoroughly as possible.

SECTION 5: HOW TO RESUSCITATE A PROOF   

In the introduction to his book, Dr. Shapiro builds a thesis that Rambam, in his later years, moved away from his system of the ikkarim as primary to Judaism. As evidence of this, the professor points to Mishneh Torah, H. Issurei Biah 14:2, where the Rambam lists the instructions that should be given to potential ger prior to his conversion. The majority of his list is taken from the Gemara in Yevamus 47a, but then the Rambam – as per Shapiro – adds two instructions of his own invention to Chazal’s formula: “He should then be made acquainted with the principles of faith, which is the oneness of G-d and the prohibition of idolatry”.       

Dr. Shapiro asks a question. Once the Rambam was making up instructions beyond the ones enumerated by Chazal, why doesn’t he add all of the 13 ikkarim that he had listed in his Mishna commentary? As the professor puts it – “This limited theological instruction is itself significant, since the Talmud says nothing of the kind. As Maimonides was adding to the Talmudic prescription, why did he not add the other Principles, especially the Third Principle, that of divine incorpreality?”¹ This indicates, concludes Dr. Shapiro, that at the time of Mishneh Torah’s writing Rambam was “no longer as closely tied to his youthful formulation of the principles as is often assumed”.

A beautiful shtickel Torah, except for one thing: When he looked up the source Gemara for this Rambam, the good doctor (Shapiro) apparently forgot to turn the page. The first instructions that Rambam lists come from Yevamus 47a, as Shapiro correctly identifies. And the last two – as pointed out by the Vilna Gaon² and others³ – come from the Braisa on 47b⁴.

With this correction, Shapiro’s observation, and the conclusion he assumed it supports, effectively collapses. As R. Grossman points out in his first article, the Rambam is simply doing what he virtually always does – codifying a Talmudic passage. The question of “once he made up some instructions why not make up even more” is a non-question: the Rambam didn’t make them up at all.

In his original response series, Dr. Shapiro acknowledged the critique and then proceeds to spend quite some space (amounting to about 9 printed pages) dropping sources. Grossman subsequently referred to this as a “lengthy digression in which he never returns to address this point”, to which Shapiro, in his Final Response, says oh yes I did – “Readers should see my discussion here. I cite a number of sources that support what I say.”⁵

What’s going on? Did he or didn’t he deflect the critique and defend his chiddush? Did he or didn’t he cite sources? What do they indicate? Let’s take a closer look.

Putting Humpty Back Together Again

At this point, there are two ways that Dr. Shapiro can justify his argument⁶: he can explain logically why even in light of the new information, his question is still troublesome, and his suggested answer therefore validated. Or he can find others who ask the same question to demonstrate that his premises are correct (or at least viable). The professor does both, but sort of mixes it all together. Let’s see if we can untangle it.

1: The Rambam could’ve innovated

Shapiro’s first angle is to debunk Grossman’s observation that the Rambam (in Mishneh Torah) sticks to codifying Talmudic statements rather than asserting his own opinions. Although the Rambam himself states this as his policy⁷, Shapiro notes that there are exceptions: in some of the scientific and philosophical matters discussed in H. Kiddush HaChodesh and Yesodei HaTorah respectively, as well as in some of the historical information he provides in the introduction, the Rambam does not necessarily base himself on Chazal.

A fine observation. But what does it have to do with us? The Rambam here is talking about the halachos of conversion, and presents the Gemara’s formula. Why would this follow any system other than his stated one for halachic codifications? Dr. Shapiro apparently feels that the concept of theological instruction can fit under the “philosophical” category, and therefore the Rambam could’ve thrown in his own ideas here while remaining true to his rule, just like he said his own philosophical ideas in Yesodei HaTorah.

Quite a stretch, we might say. This is smack in middle of a purely halachic presentation in the purely halachic section of the sefer, and as such the comparison to the early perakim of Yesodei HaTorah – which are devoted to laying out a philosophical framework – is forced to the point of silliness. But let’s play along for a minute. Maybe the Rambam could’ve innovated. But he didn’t. So what’s Shapiro’s point⁸?

Aha, we’re not done. Sit tight. Dr. Shapiro continues: maybe the Rambam did indeed make up these two instructions. True, the Gra says they came from the Braisa but – as Chaim Tchernowitz⁹ writes – the Gra doesn’t always mean to point to a writer’s actual source; sometimes he just cites a relevant passage that can be seen as a support for what the writer said¹⁰.

Ok, let’s work this out. If we decide, for no particular reason, to invent an exception to the Rambam’s rule, we can then decide, again for no particular reason¹¹, that the Gra didn’t really mean the Braisa as the source for the Rambam. Ergo, the Rambam made up the halacha, which allows us to become bothered by why he didn’t make up to say even more ikkarim. Faced with this formidable difficulty, we can be then be forced to assume that the Rambam must have retracted his system of ikkarim. After all, how else can we answer this question that I just tied myself into knots to create?   

Got it. So let’s just not say that this is an exception, ok? Let’s just say that this is a normal halacha in which the Rambam is just doing his thing – codifying the Gemara without adding his own opinions. Then there’d be no kashya, and thus no need for a speculative tirutz. Sorry if the professor may have to make some revisions to his thesis as a result of a correction, but I think that that beats making grand historical revisions as a result of an infantile shtikel Torah.

And now… for the rebuttal

R. Grossman (pg. 167) points all of this out, in a remarkably understated footnote: “Dr. Shapiro attempts to salvage his theory by speculating that the Vilna Gaon may not have really meant what he wrote, and that perhaps this case can be an exception to the non-innovation rule. And if so, we can therefore conclude that the Rambam indeed contradicts himself and therefore must have secretly changed his mind. The whole thing is contrived to the point of desperation: why imagine insincerities and invent exceptions that serve no purpose other than to create an inconsistency where none must exist, and that then requires a history revising speculation to resolve? It appears that Dr. Shapiro has started with his conclusion, and is willing to turn whatever intellectual summersaults necessary to manufacture a problem for it to solve.”

Dr. Shapiro’s Final Response to this critique would be mind-blowing, if we weren’t already getting the hang of his style: “In note 21 Grossman writes: “Dr. Shapiro attempts to salvage his theory by speculating that the Vilna Gaon may not have really meant what he wrote.” Readers can turn to my discussion here and will see that I never said that.” End of response. Done.

Readers will see that that I never said “that”. What “that”? I suppose he means that he didn’t say that the Vilna Gaon never meant it, but rather that he only meant it as a support, not source. So he has a correction to make. Point noted. Now what of the actual substance of the critique – that Shapiro built a thesis out of a logical construct that should embarrass a tenth grader? Not a word. No need to even acknowledge it. See, I already responded to Grossman’s scurrilous attacks by assuring readers that if they look they’ll see that I never said “that”.

2: Others say it too

The bulk of the earlier post that Shapiro sends us to is devoted to the professor’s go-to approach when dealing with criticism: overwhelming the reader with a landslide of sources that he asserts support his position. By the time the dust settles he has slapped down 12 references to an assortment of statements culled from throughout the literature, leaving us breathlessly trying to keep track of their implications. This provides us with a tremendously instructive opportunity to filter through them carefully and see what they reveal about this subject, as well as about what to look out for when reading Shapiro in general.

They ask my question

The first six sources Shapiro cites are from seforim that – to his mind – also ask his question, thus verifying his approach. (Of course, none of them suggest that the question implies that the Rambam changed his mind; that’s Shapiro’s own chiddush. But the fact that they asked the question validates it, and allows him to suggest his own answer.)

The first problem with this use of SDRM (the Source Dump Rebuttal Method) is that it doesn’t address the challenge.  All are from relatively obscure contemporary seforim or journals¹², and as such, even if they had actually said what he wants them to say, their existence would do nothing to validating his approach. There are tens of thousands of seforim available, with enough persistence you can find just about anything imaginable written somewhere. For a scholar to decide to advocate a given approach he should have a reason why he finds it compelling, not just dig up a Rabbi from the Young Israel of South Netanya who also once said it. These citations don’t negate the need for Shapiro to provide independent justification for his premises.

Shapiro is apparently unaware that, contrary to their popular portrayal in academic writings, traditionalist scholars don’t necessarily consider every hava aminah in every sefer ever printed to be infallible in all its implications. We can only marvel at the steadfast emunas chachamim that leads the professor to cling to a question he cannot logically validate, merely because he found something similar in a sefer.

But do they really?

The second problem with scholarship by SDRM is that deriving conclusions from a collection of sources requires one to actually study the statements internally and trace their logical implications, an endeavor for which our academic researcher demonstrates neither inclination nor any detectible aptitude. As it is, almost none of these sources ask Shapiro’s question; he has simply pulled an elaborate bail and switch.

Dr. Shapiro’s actual question went as follows: Given that the Rambam made up the rule to instruct the ger on two of the Principles¹³, the omission of the other 11 constitutes a resounding silence. It is this internal inconsistency in the Rambam that justifies his speculation about a retraction.

On this point he is wrong, as Grossman pointed out: once we can answer that the two mentioned Principles were based on the Gemara, there’s no internal inconsistency for failing to mention the other ones, and thus no need to advance any speculative revisionist theories to resolve it.

Now, there are still two legitimate questions that can be asked, neither of which is Shapiro’s question:

One: You can ask why the Gemara itself doesn’t obligate some more theological instruction.

Whatever the merits of this question are or aren’t, it is entirely irrelevant for Shapiro’s purposes which was to suggest a retraction on the part of the Rambam. A question about why Chazal didn’t obligate more instruction wouldn’t even be answered by saying that the Rambam retracted, so those who ask it are do nothing for Shapiro’s cause¹⁴.

At least two of the sources that Shapiro cites – R. Chaim Sofer¹⁵ and R. Dovid Cohen – merely ask this question, so we can remove them from the list of “sources that support what I said”.

The R. Dovid Cohen citation is particularly amusing. Rav Cohen actually points to Dr. Shapiro himself as his inspiration for this question, yet when presenting it he changes the focus from a question on the Rambam’s choices to a question on Chazal. The professor is quick to reject Rav Cohen’s reformulation of his question, because it does not yield his desired conclusion. Of course, this also makes Rav Cohen irrelevant as a source that supports Shapiro, but the general flurry of source flinging seems to have effectively confused at least one Shapiro apologist: when asked to provide an example of someone who learns the sugya the way the professor does, our good friend Shaul Shapira confidentially pointed to R. Dovid Cohen¹⁶. Mission accomplished. 

Two: Another possible question, which isn’t either Shapiro’s, is why didn’t the Rambam proactively decide to add the other 11 principles to the convert’s instructions. This is a weak question on its own; it does not rely on the internal inconsistency that the professor suggested, and can therefore be easily answered by saying that the Rambam preferred to stick to the Talmudic formula. Be that as it may, Shapiro’s research team managed to turn up two people who ask this question – Rabbis Iddo Pachter and Hayyim Amsalem (according to Google – a Rabbi from Netanya and Shas Party MK, respectively)¹⁷ . If Dr. Shapiro would also like to ask it, and see how many people find it as sufficient basis to speculate a late life Maimodean retraction, he’s more than welcome to. But that’s not the question he originally asked, so his first step would have to be to acknowledge the change from a strong internal question to a feeble a priori one.

Which of course he does not do – he simply lists those who ask this question as if they support his.

The fifth scholar he cites – a Rabbi Yisroel Meir – doesn't mention the Rambam or ask the question at all, so it’s unclear why Shapiro mentions him other than for bulk¹⁸.

Of the six, the only one who actually asks Shapiro's question is the late Av Beis Din of Haifa Rabbi Yaakov Nissan Rosenthal¹⁹, who asks why the Rambam brings the first two but not the rest of the Principles, and leaves it as a tzaruch iyun. So there’s that.

And Six More

The next six sources Dr. Shapiro throws at us are those who say that the halacha of instructing on the first two ikkarim is the Rambam’s own innovation. As we’ve come to expect, closer inspection reveals three of the six to be misrepresented and counterproductive²⁰, but he’s still left with the support of – let’s see – Rabbis Baruch Rabinovitch, Asher Feuchtwanger²¹, and Shlomo Tzadok. Although the acharonim say otherwise, says Dr. Shapiro, “this is a dispute amongst the commentators, so it makes no sense to criticize me for advocating one side of the debate”.  

Well, it does. Leaving aside²² the relative strength of the commentators on either side, what Shapiro fails to recognize is that those who assume that Rambam invented the instructions are for whatever reason untroubled by Dr. Shapiro’s kushya. If they would consider his difficulty significant, they can always fall back on the approach of the acharonim who understood the Rambam as sticking to codification not innovation. 

Dr. Shapiro, on the other hand, ‘advocates for one side of the debate’ not because that side makes things smoother, but because he feels that doing so manufactures a difficulty – a difficulty which he can then solve with a rather far-fetched suggestion. This sort of shenanigan may be par for the course in the publish or perish climate in which the professor operates, but here in real life it absolutely does make sense to criticize such a silly methodology. 

Rebuttal by self-revision

When the dust settles, nothing here actually addresses the substance of the actual critique itself, which is presumably what R. Grossman meant when he called it a “lengthy digression in which [Shapiro] never returns to address this point”.

At best, these sources’ existence (at least of the four out of twelve that actually do exist) may make it harder for someone to call Shapiro ignorant for his premises, and perhaps the critique should have been phrased somewhat less condescendingly. Indeed, in his original post this is what Dr. Shapiro stressed as his purpose of citing them. This new usage of the sources – as an answer to the substance of the critique itself – apparently represents an evolution in Shapirian thought, which ripened just in time for this Final Response. Thus: “Readers should see my discussion here. I cite a number of sources that support what I say, and thus contrary to what Grossman states, I do not just insist on my right to offer an interpretation”.

In truth, however, these sources don’t even accomplish that first purpose. Ignorance depends on a sense of scale. The fact that someone once phrased a question as a way of bringing out a point, or even as something of note that requires further research, is not the same thing as giving such credence to the question that he’d use it to prop up a heretofore unheard of grand historical revision. After all, there’s always an available answer – maybe the Rambam didn’t choose to innovate here, and the two principles he mentioned were based on the Braisa. Only if your own answer is less unlikely than this one, can this question serve to support it. And deciding that the Rambam changed his mind about what he had previously declared to be the essence of our religion, and never felt the need to let anyone know about it despite numerous updates to Pirush Hamishnayus throughout his life (even adding a paragraph to the Fourth Principle), is at least unlikely enough to require some amount of burden of proof²³. And this question, given the availability of a fairly simple answer, does not pass that threshold. Which is why none of those scholars who Shapiro cites – whatever it is that they do or don’t indicate – ever come close to offering his answer.     

And which is also why this discussion alone should cure us of any inclination we’ve ever had to take this smooth talking ignoramus seriously.

READING COMPREHENSION

And then there’s the misquotes. Always, there’s the misquotes. Let’s work our way through them:

1: Professor Twersky

The Rambam doesn’t innovate, says Grossman. Oh yes he does, responds Shapiro. Even my teacher, Isadore Twersky says so:

“In his Introduction to the Code of Maimonides, pp. 474-475 (and note 293), Twersky states that the notion that ‘every phrase and nuance of the MT is explicit in some source’ is ‘misleading. It fails to acknowledge the interpretative-derivative aspects of the MT’.

Twersky also rejects the notion that the instructions in theology given to a convert are based on a particular talmudic passage (the very point on which Grossman criticized me).”

I guess you see what you want to see. Shapiro goes on to quote at length from Dr. Twersky’s explanation of the Rambam’s methodology and its application to our sugya, apparently getting excited over phrases such as: “As a matter of fact, the entire presentation bristles with suggestive Maimonidean novelties which should not be glossed over and obscured.” Look – Twersky said “novelties”.

What Shapiro leaves out is Dr. Twersky’s explanation of what he means by ‘novelties’ and how it applies here: “This is not the category of the Maimonidean novelty, usually heralded by the formula ‘it seems to me’, but an interpretative elaboration which in Maimonides’ opinion is implicit in the text” (ibid. fn 293, in the immediate next sentence after Shapiro chooses to cut off the quote). Well, what do you know. Twersky says the exact opposite of Shapiro: This theological instruction is not the Rambam’s innovation – which would leave us with the question of why he didn’t innovate more – but rather something Rambam saw as ‘implicit in the text’²⁴.

Absent as well is Twersky’s explanation of how Ramabam saw these instructions implicit in the text: when Chazal required the convert be informed of “some commandments”, that must obviously begin, says the Rambam as per Twersky, with “the first and most important commandment of all – a true conception of the oneness of G-d”. Alas, this approach does nothing to support his talmid’s thesis. Which might explain Shapiro’s choosing to splice out key phrases when quoting it²⁵. 

2: Maggid Mishneh

I can’t say this one better than Grossman already did²⁶ (and Shapiro ignored):

“In his search for authorities who assume – unlike the Vilna Gaon – that Rambam invented the proselyte’s instructions, Shapiro hits on pay dirt: Maggid Mishneh himself says so, right there on the page:

ומאריכין בדבר זה : בייחוד השם ובאיסור ע"ז שאינו מבואר שם שיאריכו עמו בזה אבל הדבר פשוט שכיון שאלו הם עיקרי הדת והאמונה צריך להודיעם בברור ולהאריך עמם בזה שהוא עיקר היהדות והגירות

Except that he doesn’t. Maggid Mishneh simply says that it’s not explicit that instruction in this area should be provided at length. By implication, it is abundantly clear that Maggid Mishneh understood that the actual imperative to instruct indeed is explicit – exactly like the Gaon and in contradiction to Shapiro.”

The Maggid Mishneh himself feels that the addition of "ומאריבין בדבר זה" – “we elaborate on this point” is merely an underlying detail and thus not out of bounds for the Rambam to innovate on his own. Not everyone agrees to even this, as we shall see.

 3: R. Chaim Sofer

Now here’s something that is – to paraphrase Dr. Shapiro – “really comical”.

As an example of one of those who ask his question on the Rambam, Shapiro quotes R. Chaim Sofer as saying: “והדבר נפלא הלא יש י“ג עיקרי הדת והי‘ לו לב“ד להאריך בכל השרשים”.

In response to Grossman challenging him on context, Shapiro in his Final Response doubled down and put up a picture of the whole relevant page, stating: “R. Sofer says exactly what I quote him as saying. The final passage in the paragraph, which is mistranslated by Grossman, has nothing to do with my point and does not refute it in any way.”

I say it’s comical because – to paraphrase the professor again – Shapiro doesn’t have a clue as to what is going on here.

R. Sofer is not asking why the Rambam didn’t add more principles. He is not even asking about the instruction in the principles at all. He’s asking about the addition of “we elaborate on this point” – and his issue is not with the Rambam, it’s with the Maggid Mishneh. His difficulty is that he doesn’t accept the Maggid Mishneh’s assertion that at least this detail was the Rambam’s innovation; as Rav Sofer protests, “it is not the practice of the Rambam to innovate things that don’t have a basis in the Gemara”.

In other words, Rav Sofer interprets non-innovative policy even more strictly than does the Maggid Mishneh. Whereas the latter understands the Rambam’s core din to be based on the Gemara, but allowed for the innovative addition of “we elaborate”, Rav Sofer rejects even this. After all, it is not the practice of the Rambam to innovate things that don’t have a basis in the Gemara²⁷.    

Shapiro, who missed the boat on the Maggid Mishneh, and entirely disregarded the correction, was left in the unfortunate position of having no context through which to process R. Chaim Sofer. He thus found himself rather pompously doubling down on his mistake. (Though what the professor meant by “The final passage in the paragraph … has nothing to do with my point and does not refute it in any way” is anybody’s guess.)

4: Ma’aseh Rokeiach

An identical comedy skit takes place with Shapiro’s citation of the Ma’aseh Rokeiach: “On the Rambam’s words, Hilkhot Issurei Biah 14:2, that we instruct the convert in basic theology, R. Masud Hai Rakah, Ma’aseh Rakah, ad loc., writes: זה לא הוזכר בברייתא.” There you have it – another source that the Rambam innovated.

Except that the full statement reads as follows: זה לא הוזכר בברייתא והרב המגיד ז"ל כתב דהאריכות הוא מדברי רבינו נראה שגם הוא היה גירסתו כך להדיא.

Ma’aseh Rokeiach, too, is rejecting Maggid Mishneh’s allowance for even the detail of “at length” to be an innovation; he therefore speculates that the Rambam must have had a variant text that included it.

Nothing to see here other than another clear repudiation of Shapiro’s take on the sugya. Yet he chops it down to the first three words, pretends the word “zeh” is a reference to the instructions themselves, and assures his gullible admirers that the source says the exact opposite of what it actually does say.

Is there any reason at all to ever take this guy seriously?

SOME FINAL THOUGHTS (for now)²⁸

If all I’ve accomplished in this essay is convince you that the Maimonidean Retraction Theory is silly, I have failed. What’s far more important is to reevaluate who it is that we get our information from in the first place.

In many circles, Dr. Marc Shapiro’s ideas on the Ikkarei Emunah are taken almost as a given. In the twenty years since his book was written its theses have seeped into the popular consciousness, and merely referring back to Shapiro serves as a primary source.

This is the fundamentals of Yahadus we’re talking about. From a man who, when he slaps down twelve sources in support of something, five turn out to be irrelevant, four contradict his position, and none at all do anything to justify his conclusions at any rate. From a man who rewrites history in order to answer a kashya which is only shver in the first place if you take two separate baseless and pointless leaps of imagination.

But more importantly, from a man who does all that in a way that leaves you impressed – nay, convinced – by his presentation. If you have the time, I’d urge you to go back and read Dr. Shapiro’s pieces again. Note how erudite and sure of himself he sounds, how conclusive they come across. So many sources, such glib, confident scholarship. And then consider what we’ve written here.

And please, please remember that contrast. Because, regardless of what kind of intellectual high we get from some juicy Judaic Studies, the preservation of reality is much more important.

To be continued.  

1. Limits pg. 7.

2. Biur HaGra YD 268:6.

3. See Aruch L’Ner to Yevamus 47b and Keser HaMelech to H. Issurei Biah 14:2. Both are clear that the Rambam didn’t invent the instructions. As we will see later in this review, the Maggid Mishneh, Ma’aseh Rokeiach, Machaneh Chaim, and even Professor Isadore Twersky all indicate a similar premise in the sugya.  

4. Which records that Naomi informed Rus of the prohibition against idolatry, to which the latter replied "ואלקיך אלקי". It should be noted that it’s immaterial for our purposes whether or not this source is an obvious fit. Obviously, the Rambam’s halacha is based on his own leanings and interpretative methods (see below where R. Dr. Isadore Tversky is quoted as making this same point). The question only is if he had Talmudic basis to fall back on, or if this insertion was entirely an invention of his own. The acharonim maintain that Rambam – as per his general rule – does not insert his own opinion without basis, and considered this baraisa sufficient support. As such, there’s no question of why he didn’t add the other 11 with no Talmudic basis at all.

5. All quotes from Dr. Shapiro in this review are from this post, unless otherwise indicated. This post was one of four that Shapiro put out in response to R. Grossman’s first article. Grossman’s second article responded to it at some length; in his Final Response, Shapiro simply refers the reader back to the post.

6. Well, I guess there’s also a third option – he can acknowledge that it was based on a mistaken premise and as such should be abandoned. But let’s be serious.

7. Letter to R. Pinchos Hadayan.

8. His presentation is somewhat rambled, so it’s left for us to piece together his intent. At this point it’s also possible that Shapiro simply means to ask why the Rambam didn’t innovatively add the other principles even assuming the first two weren’t an innovation. The problem with this is threefold – firstly, that would mean he just changed his question to a weaker one without telling anyone about the switch or acknowledging that the question as it appears in the book is an error; second, this new question is equally ridiculous, because why not just say that the Rambam didn’t innovate because of his own rule for halachic codification, and not unilaterally invent that this case should be an exception to the rule in order to ask a kashya; third, Shapiro later on spends much time trying to salvage his claim that the first two were an innovation, which leads me to assume his intention is as I present it here.

9. Me neither. Google him.

10. Shapiro acknowledges that even if the Gra doesn’t, others do cite the Braisa as the source. But, as he says, others do not. So it’s a disagreement amongst commentators. I suppose the reason he feels the need to do away with the Gra was because even by his standards, to construct a ‘disagreement amongst commentators’ between Rabbi Asher Feuchtwanger and the Vilna Gaon rings slightly ridiculous. See below for further discussion of his alleged sources.

11. The professor never provides an objective reason why we would assume that the Gra does not mean the braisa as a source, especially in light of the fact that other authorities do indeed see it as one. His whole argument is that it’s a possibility. The desperation here is excruciating.

12. With the exception of Machaneh Chaim, which is from a relatively obscure 19^th Century sefer (and doesn’t ask Shapiro’s question, and actually supports Grossman’s approach. See below for further discussion).

13. And indeed, invented the whole concept of theological instruction altogether.

14. If you wish, you can even present this as a kushya on the Rambam’s system of the ikkarim itself. But it still does nothing for Shapiro, and wouldn’t be answered by saying “Rambam changed his mind”. Somehow the youthful Rambam made peace with this Gemara, and we have no indication of a retraction.

15. The one line that Shapiro quotes from R. Sofer’s several page long pilpul – "והדבר נפלא הלא יש י“ג עיקרי הדת והי‘ לו לב“ד להאריך בכל השרשים" – is, in context, no more a question on the Rambam himself than it is on the facts of the matter. But in reality that’s not even his question, but rather a rhetorical lead up to his actual point, which is to discuss where the Rambam saw even the minor details of this halacha implicit in the Gemara. See below for further elaboration. At any rate, to quote even this this line in his support is a fundamental error, as explained in the previous footnote.

16. See here.

17. Rabbi Amsalem does not ask it as a question at all, rather – similar to Rabbi Meir below – simply explains why the other 11 Principles are not required. I include him here because unlike Rabbi Meir he actually mentions the Rambam.

18. Rabbi Meir states that theological instruction is no different than all other religious instruction – a comprehensive education in all details is not feasible, so you simply tell the Ger the basics and the rest he learns as he goes. Dr. Shapiro rejects this – as he says, “the Principles of Faith are not that many” – so he’d rather ask it as a kushya (on the Rambam) and then offer his preferred tirutz of a retraction. Great. But Rabbi Meir doesn’t do that. And doesn’t ask the kushya. And doesn’t mention the Rambam. So Rabbi Meir is worse than irrelevant. It’s not clear at this point if Shapiro is being sly, or if he has effectively managed to confuse himself.

19. While he does ask the question, describing him as a "source that supports what I say" is a bit rich. Rav Rosenthal asks the question without providing Grossman's answer, true. But he also doesn't provide Shapiro's answer either, preferring instead to leave it as a tzaruch iyun. As such, he stands exactly as much as an explicit source that *opposes* Shapiro - even faced with this question he did not consider it feasible to suggest that Rambam retracted. (Of course, the possibility exists that he just didn't think of Shapiro's answer. But then again maybe he just didn't think of Grossman's. It remains an open question as to which answer Rav Rosenthal would prefer if faced with the choice of only either Grossman's or Shapiro's.)

20. See below.

21. I smell a rat on this one too, but I honestly have no more strength to look into this anymore. Shapiro tells us that R. Feuchtwanger asks as a question why the Rambam made up these two instructions, and “offers an original solution”. The professor sees in this that R. Feuchtwanger supports his approach that the two mentioned ones were an innovation. From what’s quoted, however, we also see that R. Feuchtwanger – contrary to Shapiro – considered it in and of itself problematic for the Rambam to do such a thing, and feels the need to provide an ‘original solution’. I’d be curious to see what that original solution is, and where that leaves R. Feuchtwanger in terms of supporting or contradicting Dr. Shapiro’s own approach to the sugya. Readers with interest are invited to follow up on this thread and share their findings. (The source provided is Asher la-Melekh, Hilkhot Issurei Biah 14:2)

22. For no particular reason.

23. Aside from the bomb-kushya from hilchos geirus, the only other indication Shapiro produces of the Great Maimonidean Retraction is that the professor “would have expected” the Rambam to emphasize the Principles more in his later writings. I suppose we’re all entitled to our expectations, but while we’re expecting, I’d have expected that if he changed his mind about the core linchpin of his religious philosophy he mighta wanted to mention that somewhere in his later writings. Or at least not go on updating and disseminating the discontinued model. And while we’re at it, I’d also have expected that he not refer at all to a theological system that he no longer ascribed to, whether or not he “emphasizes” it. Being that he does (in Maimar Techiyas Hameisim, see Limits pg. 6 and Grossman pg. 171), we can safely classify this entire ridiculous theory as a waste of everyone’s time.

24. What’s more, Twersky tells us that Rambam’s statements, even in this so-called ‘philosophical’ context, are not to be read as innovations unless so indicated by “it appears to me”. How very Grossmanian of him.

25. Grossman points out the inaccurate presentation, and Shapiro didn’t feel the need to respond or acknowledge. What’s interesting is that Twersky’s approach would fit well as a framework for the Gra’s citation as well. The Braisa on 47b may not be explicit as a source for the two principles, but it definitely is within bounds as “an interpretative elaboration which in Maimonides’ opinion is implicit in the text”, contrary to Shapiro who unilaterally and gratuitously decided that the Gra didn’t mean it as a source at all. Indeed, Professor Twersky’s son, R. Mayer Twersky, does cite 47b as the source (as quoted by Shapiro, in footnote 28).

26. Pg. 174 – 175.

27. If Shapiro had taken the time to read through R. Sofer’s answer (which is rather lengthy and does not appear on the page the professor posts) he might have understood the discussion better. Rav Sofer explains that the Rambam did indeed see the idea of elaborating on specifically these two instructions implicit in the Gemara, through the contrapositive. See there for more details.

28. The purpose of this essay was to analyze Shapiro’s rebuttal tactics, not necessarily his thesis itself. However, in order to stave off some distracting confusion, I’ll take a moment here to clarify some points about the premise.

Shapiro’s argument is that the Rambam no longer considered the 13 ikkarim as the theological foundation of Judaism. Of course, that does not mean he didn’t believe the ideas expressed in the Principles to be true and important, but rather that his system of dogma changed, perhaps to something more in line with those Rishonim who argued on the whole concept of ikkarim altogether. Possible consequences of such a retraction would be with regard to someone who entertains heretical thoughts but does express them, or the question of an ‘unwitting heretic’, as Shapiro indicates on pgs. 8 - 9 and 10 – 11, respectively. More importantly, if perhaps academically, is that such a retraction would constitute a fundamental shift in Rambam’s views of the philosophical underpinnings of Judaism.

For a variety of reasons, such a suggestion is far-fetched to the point of being ridiculous. A reader has therefore proposed that all Shapiro meant was that Rambam moved away from the ‘catechism’ of the 13 Principles, which he only meant as a pithy formulation for beginners in any event.

It’s difficult to believe that anyone who has actually read the book could walk away with such an impression. True, Shapiro does make that additional point later in his discussion, but that is certainly not the extent or even the thrust of his argument. Pages 6 through 9 in particular are quite clear, and leave no room for error.

(The reader demanded some quotes, so here some are. But really, this is not an ‘inference’ from some selected lines of the text, it’s what the entire point of the text is:

a.      “Even here the Thirteen Principles are not set apart as being fundamentally more significant…”

b.      “Certainly, had Maimonides continued to regard the Thirteen Principles as the essence of Judaism…” 

c.       “Yet if he had regarded the Thirteen Principles as his final statement on the fundamentals of Jewish faith [he should have listed them in the beginning of H. Yesodei HaTorah].”

d.      “Remembering that Maimonides stated that belief in the Thirteen Principles is essential to being a Jew [it should have been listed as required instruction to a convert, had Rambam still maintained such a position]”.

e.      “…it would certainly be improper to make conclusions about [Rambam’s] theological views on the basis of a text designed for beginners.”

f.       “…he never actually states [in the Yad] that entertaining the thought alone makes one a heretic…”  

Please don’t parse these quotes unless you read them in the context of the four pages referenced above. I honestly have no idea how anyone can read Shapiro otherwise, and I imagine Dr. Shapiro himself would be confused by this reader’s distortion of his position. I only spend time on it here to forestall the power of letzanus achas docheh meah tochachos.)

Shapiro’s arguments are both a result mistaken premises as well as laughably insufficient as basis for his revision, as explained throughout this essay and in fn. 23. There is far more to be said about the internal incoherence and objective baselessness of his position, but that would take us far off course to subject of the current essay. Perhaps a future article will be devoted to such an analysis.