“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”
If I may point out, this is essentially what the מהרש״א (referenced by the ערוך לנר you quoted) says on the Gemara there.
This whole conversation is so asinine. Anyone who has learned all Rambams writings knows that he takes a truth based approach over a source/tradition based approach. For example, truth dictates that God doesn’t have a hand, so when the Torah says yad Hashem, it must not be literal. The 13 ikkarim are things Rambam thinks are true. Bringing a source that doesn’t seem to agree becomes entirely irrelevant. Shapiro’s premise is that any source that disagrees is somehow relevant. The only relevant sources are those that disagree with the truth of the matter. Any rebuttals that argues that those sources actually agree with Rambam still are not talking to the truth of the matter.
A corollary of this is that because these ikkarim are such basic truths in Judaism, they don’t have to be taught to a ger, because he would only try to become a Jew if he already came to these truths.
This is why Rambam restates the ikkarim in Mishna Torah only as a negative in hilchos teshuva. They are the obvious logical premises underlying Judaism. Therefore, anyone who does not agree with them has no olam habah, because they lack the minimum intellectual perfection needed. Hence, he discusses the ikkarim by the mishna discussing all Jews getting olam habah. A jew means someone who agrees with these principles.
“Machaneh Chaim, which is from a relatively obscure 19th Century sefer.”
Sorry but this is non relatively ridiculous. The מחנה חיים was a well known גאון עולם. As the דברי חיים wrote about him:
תפארת ישראל והוא נר ישראל באמת, ידיד נאמן לי וידיד עליון וידיד נפש כל חי, והוא בקי נפלא כאשר הוא מפורסם בנגלה ובנסתר כאחד הראשונים (!), והוא מוסר נפשו בכל יום מאודו בעד השי״ת בעד עמו ובעד תורתו, כל הקם נגדו כאילו קם נגד הקב״ה.
Btw and somewhat pertinent, you’d appreciate the teshuvah from the מחנה חיים referenced by the משנה ברורה סימן ש״ז regarding Sforim which are חוטא ומחטיא.
Fantastic post. You clearly spent a lot of time and effort on it, it is appreciated.
A few critiques as I go along:
“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.”
I don’t think you are understand him correctly here. He was criticizing Grossmans all encompassing statement about the nature of the Rambam which he’s showing isn’t always true. He is definitely not insinuating that this falls into that category.
As to the real reason why he isn’t giving it primacy for this specific Halachik discussion, he doesn’t lay it out, rather finger points to some sources who he understands as saying the Rambam said something here without a source, in this Halachik discussion, contra to the Rambams letter to Rav Pinchos.
The real reason he doesn’t care about that point here, is because as he explains in his Maimonides and His Interpreters, he understands the Rambam as exaggerating and not really meaning what he says in that letter. Surprise. (He gives some sources to back that up, I haven’t checked them up).
Regardless, I agree to your overall point that even if so etc.
I'm reading what he wrote. What he wrote was that Grossman is incorrect that the Rambam doesn't innovate, and provides those counterexamples. Then he goes on to insist that the Rambam IS innovating here. If you want to tell me he was babbling incoherently that's fine, and very possible. At any rate, as you pointed out, it doesn't affect anything about the substance of our discussion. All our points remain the same in either reading.
“As Maimonides states in Guide i. 50: 'Belief is not the notion that is uttered, but the notion that is represented in the soul when it has been averred of it that it is in fact just as it has been repre- sented, We must therefore conclude that Maimonides' use of the words 'one who says' in describing a heretic are only in imitation of Mishnah Sanhedrin 10: 1, where the same formulation is found, and not too much should be read into this. One who believes in a corporeal God or in the existence of many gods, even without saying so publicly, is indeed a heretic as far as Maimonidean theology is concerned. Such a person will not face any penalties from an earthly court, but he is certainly denied a share in the world to come.”
If I remember correctly this is another thing Grossman botched.
“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”.“
Really not sure what you mean by this. At that point he definitely IS asking about instruction in the Principles and not solely about the elaboration.
I agree though to your overall point, and that it’s a lead up question.
"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”."
This isn't complicated. Grossman accused Shapiro of claiming that the Gra didn't mean what he said. Shapiro is rightly bewildered as to where Grossman came up with such a nutty idea. If Grossman hadn't insisted on trying to accuse Shapiro of being functionally illiterate and a Spinoza-like meisis, a lot of this noise could have been avoided. It shouldn't be too much to ask that he stick to critiquing Shapiro for things he actually said. To quote Shapiro, "I can only express my regret at the style that Grossman chose to adopt in his articles. Had he written in an appropriate fashion then it would have been possible to have had a constructive discussion and debate."
Prof. MS said that the גר"א did not mean to bring a מקור, thus saving the Prof's ראיה
R. Grossman rejected this דוחק.
Since the גר"א does both (brings מקורות as a ראיה to the רמב"ם or שו"ע or רמ"א etc., and brings הקבלות), there is no reason to prefer the Prof's הסבר to the other הסבר
So it doesn't bother you that Grossman had a killer critique and readers of Shapiro's response come away with the impression that he had said nothing of substance because Shapiro brushes it off with "I never said that"?
It doesn't bother you that Shapiro said something blatantly stupid and weaseled away from owning up when called out on it, through the use of sly and snide rebuttal tactics?
Ok, so this post is not for you. It seems the point of this post was to make exactly that observation. If you don't care, you don't care. Go find something else to read that is more to your interest set.
"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."
Nobody here is saying Grossman is perfect. So what? Does that change the point?
I'm not saying Shapiro is perfect either. I don't have a problem with people critiquing him at all. I just get annoyed when said critique morphs into a supposed takedown of his level of expertise generally. Especially when it's on the back of a malicious review in a Journal by a guy who apparently didn't read the book he's allegedly reviewing well enough to even quote it accurately.
RT has repeatedly said that his point is much larger than critiquing an isolated blog post. He holds Shapiro up for ridicule. And then people like you show up to crow about what an ignoramus Shapiro is. As you're doing now.
"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"
"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...
"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."
Except it doesn't. Getting back to the book, Shapiro made the point that it's odd that the ikkarim aren't listed *anywhere* as a unit in the Yad. Grossman turned that into evidence of Shapiro's "misconception of the structure of the Rambam’s work. The Rambam.. never made a statement in his Mishneh Torah which did not have a source in the Talmud."
But once you acknowledge that the Rambam wrote several *whole chapters* in the mishna torah which aren't found in the gemara, Shapiro's larger point is entirely valid. Your whole debunking is simply of a passing raya to his general observation.
"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."
Same response as above. Granted, Grossman was focusing on the argument from hilchos issurei biah. But that is almost completely tangential to the larger point that the 13 aren't listed ANYWHERE in the Yad as unit.
All acknowledged and discussed b'mkomo, sorry if you have a difficult time keeping track.
Shapiro wrote a 9 page essay in defense of this one point. That essay was the focus of this article. His other argument for his theory is mentioned and discussed peripherally, as it is, in the context of our discussion, peripheral.
"All acknowledged and discussed b'mkomo, sorry if you have a difficult time keeping track."
I don't have trouble keeping track. It wasn't 'a 9 page essay in defense of this one point.' It was part of a blog post. Shapiro writes a lot of things on Seforim blog. He meanders. Because, unlike, an essay, it's.....a blog post.
But I'm glad you're keeping track of page counts to go along with your scoreboard.
"His other argument for his theory is mentioned and discussed peripherally, as it is, in the context of our discussion, peripheral."
Whatever that means. Your 'discussion' claims to "cure us of any inclination we’ve ever had to take this smooth talking ignoramus seriously." It doesn't. Because you're fixating on things which are tangents of a tangent.
You're way too busy with Shapiro's madreigos. My point is that his central theses are very well supported with citations and fixating on tangents of tangents as proof that he shouldn't be taken seriously at all is ridiculous. I'm not interested in getting into a tzitzis checking contest with you. You can email him with all the tochacha and mussar you like.
I don't get the question of why the 13 aren't listed as unit in Mishnah Torah. They are all included in Mishnah Torah, but not as unit. Why should they be listed as a unit? Where did he get this idea from? Does he think that anytime something is said a certain way somewhere else in the Rambam's texts, and is not said that way in Mishnah Torah, there is a contradiction?
Shapiro didn't claim there was a 'contradiction.' He said it's odd that the ikkarim- THE IKKARIM- aren't listed as a unit anywhere in the Yad. Now go back and read Grossman's reply to that , and tell me who's being silly and why.
It relates to who ought to be taken seriously. You're analyzing blog posts which are a response to a response to a response as part of what you repeatedly claim is evidence of Shapiro's general cluelessness. If the standard of being taken seriously isn't met by Shapiro, it certainly isn't met by you or Grossman either.
Sorry, I got lost in the threads. I see you were referring to what I said above.
Now to answer your question. As noted by Shapiro,( and as apparently conceded by RT,) the Rambam includes plenty of things in the Yad which are in now way an elaboration of the 613 mitvos. If someone claims otherwise, that's a sign that they're a whole lot more clueless than Shapiro is.
Truthfully, this is getting a bit boring. We have already seen numerous examples of Shapiro's shoddy 'scholarship'! Now, we need to pour through even more obscure sources to see another example of it!
It's perfectly clear in my humble opinion that Dr Shapiro at this point does indeed mean this. I do agree to the 2 points of rebuttal that you make.
However, I disagree with the third point. There are two separate argumentations he is making. They are not mutually exclusive.
On that note, that which you write:
"Two: Another possible question, which isn’t either Shapiro’s,...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."
as l said, I do think he made it clear that he is asking it.
I agree though that he did not "acknowledge the change from a strong internal question to a feeble a priori one."
The third wasn't a "point of rebuttal", it was an explanation of why I'm teitching him up the way I am. At any rate, I acknowledged the possibility of your understanding and explained why it's equally ridiculous. I think we're on the same page with regard to everything of substance.
As an aside, I think you are reading him far more pedantically than it is meant to be read. I honestly don't believe that at the time of writing he was distinguishing in his mind between between the nuances of the two questions. He jumps back and forth between them (as well as between several other irrelevancies) and does not seem to recognize the differences.
In analyzing it, I broke it down to the two points in order to assess each, but there's no indication whatsoever that he himself ever did so, or that he'd even understand what you and I are talking about here.
"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 Cohen"
As long as I'm getting a shout out, I may as well link to some of my own comments too. I'll note also that I stand by my point that you've completely bungled the Rosh Amana as well. Shapiro cited him accurately. I just can't track down that thread.
"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."
Again, I largely agree. I think Limits is best used as a reference work to look stuff up inside, if at all. Or people can use R Dovid Cohen's works. or Chemda Tova. There's plenty of quality charedi alternatives out there. The added benefit is that then they'll actually be aware of the genuine issues on their own, rather than having to rely on silly blog posts on Substack.
"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."
Note that his book really isn't mainly about the Rambam changing his mind or not. It's amusing how much you're harping on this.
"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."
If people have the time, people should check Shapiro's sources up inside. Not read blog posts which are busy trying to 'untangle' things.
What in heaven's name do you even think you mean by this sentence? Do you have stuff in mind when you write things like this, or do you just spin your snark generator and go with whatever it lands on?
"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."
Again, he wrote the ikkarim as part of a hakdama to a perek in mishnayos. Shapiro's point is that he doesn't list them in any similar such way in his code of Jewish law. To paraphrase you, 'I would think the Rambam mighta wanted to ensure that people don't have to jump around in his mishna torah to get clear what they need to believe. Like, maybe they should be in Yesodei hatorah ahead of a discussion about planets.'
"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."
That's *one* piece of evidence. (It's all of one paragraph in a 200 page book.) His main point is that the ikkarim aren't listed as a unit in the Yad anywhere. And, "Readers should examine Limits for more details. My thoughts in this matter were in the way of a suggestion, not an absolute conclusion, that I thought worthy of bringing to the attention of readers."
=====
"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."
Shapiro is tenured. He isn't in need of being published lest he perish. He blogs, lectures, leads tours, serves as scholar in residence etc. And le'shitascha, his fellow academics are too stupid to understand your geonishe upshluggs of him anyhow, so he needn't worry that anything will change.
"That's *one* piece of evidence. (It's all of one paragraph in a 200 page book.) His main point is that the ikkarim aren't listed as a unit in the Yad anywhere."
Being that this point was addressed (where it belonged - in a footnote) what have you added with this comment? Snark generator acting up again?
If you have something of substance to respond to what was said in that footnote, go ahead.
Lol. Most of the post centers around that point. I quoted the footnote because it was the most concise formulation. I could equally have quoted half the actual post, but that seemed like overkill.
"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."
What's that supposed to mean??? He corrects R David Cohen because he cites a question from Shapiro which Shapiro says he never asked. Not sure what conspiracy theory you're trying to peddle here.
"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:"
Not quite....
" when asked to provide an example of someone who learns the sugya the way the professor does, our good friend Shaul Shapira confidentially [sic] pointed to R. Dovid Cohen16.
16 See here."
Indeed. People should see there.
=====
"I guess you see what you want to see."
I agree with that. I just disagree about who's the one seeing things
======
"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.)"
If your point is that people should read Shapiro's book, Grossman's reviews, Shapiro's responses, and yours, I'd be inclined to agree. Is it?
I have no idea what you mean by any one of these comments, and I'm getting a strong vibe that neither do you. At any rate I think it's been long established that these backs and forths with you serve very little purpose. As a [different] great man once said, "Let the readers decide what they find more compelling."
Undermines *what* argument? He never claimed that R Dovid Cohen asked why the Rambam doesn't include it. He explicitly *disclaimed* that. (As you *yourself* correctly pointed out!) He mentioned it as something which is loosely related related to the discussion. Which it manifestly is. There wasn't anything nefarious about his citing of it. For RT to claim, as he does in the post, that, "The professor is quick to reject Rav Cohen’s reformulation of his question, because it does not yield his desired conclusion....but the general flurry of source flinging seems to have effectively confused at least one Shapiro apologist" is absurd on its face. If I'm confused, that's my own problem, not Shapiro's
Now, as a *separate* matter, I happen to think that R Dovid Cohen's question indirectly does support Shapiro. See the thread which RT linked to. But whether I'm right or wrong about that is entirely beside the point.
Okay, I disagree. On both points. As I state in that linked thread.
I think we're about at that point in our discussion where RT pops in to tell you what a moron I am and what a waste of time it is to try to reason with me. Stay tuned, I guess.
Actually he seems to have missed the ברייתא. So he is wrong, just like Shapiro. The difference is that the אשר למלך didn't double down on it when this was pointed out, unlike Shapiro.
His actual answer is very similar to the מחנה חיים.
This was geshmak! You took him, hung him out to dry, and burned the corpse.
“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”
If I may point out, this is essentially what the מהרש״א (referenced by the ערוך לנר you quoted) says on the Gemara there.
This whole conversation is so asinine. Anyone who has learned all Rambams writings knows that he takes a truth based approach over a source/tradition based approach. For example, truth dictates that God doesn’t have a hand, so when the Torah says yad Hashem, it must not be literal. The 13 ikkarim are things Rambam thinks are true. Bringing a source that doesn’t seem to agree becomes entirely irrelevant. Shapiro’s premise is that any source that disagrees is somehow relevant. The only relevant sources are those that disagree with the truth of the matter. Any rebuttals that argues that those sources actually agree with Rambam still are not talking to the truth of the matter.
A corollary of this is that because these ikkarim are such basic truths in Judaism, they don’t have to be taught to a ger, because he would only try to become a Jew if he already came to these truths.
The Aberbenal says that it is pashut that the 13 Principles need to be taught to the Ger.
And...?
This is why Rambam restates the ikkarim in Mishna Torah only as a negative in hilchos teshuva. They are the obvious logical premises underlying Judaism. Therefore, anyone who does not agree with them has no olam habah, because they lack the minimum intellectual perfection needed. Hence, he discusses the ikkarim by the mishna discussing all Jews getting olam habah. A jew means someone who agrees with these principles.
“Machaneh Chaim, which is from a relatively obscure 19th Century sefer.”
Sorry but this is non relatively ridiculous. The מחנה חיים was a well known גאון עולם. As the דברי חיים wrote about him:
תפארת ישראל והוא נר ישראל באמת, ידיד נאמן לי וידיד עליון וידיד נפש כל חי, והוא בקי נפלא כאשר הוא מפורסם בנגלה ובנסתר כאחד הראשונים (!), והוא מוסר נפשו בכל יום מאודו בעד השי״ת בעד עמו ובעד תורתו, כל הקם נגדו כאילו קם נגד הקב״ה.
Ok. Conceded. My apologies to the MC and anyone who I may have offended with my insensitivity.
Next ha'ara please.
Thanks for pointing out how chashuv the MC was. Shame for Shapiro that such a chashuv person contradicts him.
Btw and somewhat pertinent, you’d appreciate the teshuvah from the מחנה חיים referenced by the משנה ברורה סימן ש״ז regarding Sforim which are חוטא ומחטיא.
Fantastic post. You clearly spent a lot of time and effort on it, it is appreciated.
A few critiques as I go along:
“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.”
I don’t think you are understand him correctly here. He was criticizing Grossmans all encompassing statement about the nature of the Rambam which he’s showing isn’t always true. He is definitely not insinuating that this falls into that category.
As to the real reason why he isn’t giving it primacy for this specific Halachik discussion, he doesn’t lay it out, rather finger points to some sources who he understands as saying the Rambam said something here without a source, in this Halachik discussion, contra to the Rambams letter to Rav Pinchos.
The real reason he doesn’t care about that point here, is because as he explains in his Maimonides and His Interpreters, he understands the Rambam as exaggerating and not really meaning what he says in that letter. Surprise. (He gives some sources to back that up, I haven’t checked them up).
Regardless, I agree to your overall point that even if so etc.
Thanks.
I'm reading what he wrote. What he wrote was that Grossman is incorrect that the Rambam doesn't innovate, and provides those counterexamples. Then he goes on to insist that the Rambam IS innovating here. If you want to tell me he was babbling incoherently that's fine, and very possible. At any rate, as you pointed out, it doesn't affect anything about the substance of our discussion. All our points remain the same in either reading.
Footnote 28
“Possible consequences of such a retraction would be with regard to someone who entertains heretical thoughts but does express them”
(Spelling error: does’NT)
Shapiro clearly rejects this notion in the book.
I looked again. I don't see what you are referring to.
Limits page 13
“As Maimonides states in Guide i. 50: 'Belief is not the notion that is uttered, but the notion that is represented in the soul when it has been averred of it that it is in fact just as it has been repre- sented, We must therefore conclude that Maimonides' use of the words 'one who says' in describing a heretic are only in imitation of Mishnah Sanhedrin 10: 1, where the same formulation is found, and not too much should be read into this. One who believes in a corporeal God or in the existence of many gods, even without saying so publicly, is indeed a heretic as far as Maimonidean theology is concerned. Such a person will not face any penalties from an earthly court, but he is certainly denied a share in the world to come.”
If I remember correctly this is another thing Grossman botched.
Could be. I'll check again. If so, I apologize for the error, inconsequential though it may be.
“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”.“
Really not sure what you mean by this. At that point he definitely IS asking about instruction in the Principles and not solely about the elaboration.
I agree though to your overall point, and that it’s a lead up question.
That's all I meant, that it's a lead up to his discussion about mea'arichin lo. I see what you mean that it wasn't perfectly phrased.
"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”."
This isn't complicated. Grossman accused Shapiro of claiming that the Gra didn't mean what he said. Shapiro is rightly bewildered as to where Grossman came up with such a nutty idea. If Grossman hadn't insisted on trying to accuse Shapiro of being functionally illiterate and a Spinoza-like meisis, a lot of this noise could have been avoided. It shouldn't be too much to ask that he stick to critiquing Shapiro for things he actually said. To quote Shapiro, "I can only express my regret at the style that Grossman chose to adopt in his articles. Had he written in an appropriate fashion then it would have been possible to have had a constructive discussion and debate."
The גר"א brought the מקור בחז"ל for דברי הרמב"ם
Therefore, Prof. MS has no ראיה to start his מהלך
Prof. MS said that the גר"א did not mean to bring a מקור, thus saving the Prof's ראיה
R. Grossman rejected this דוחק.
Since the גר"א does both (brings מקורות as a ראיה to the רמב"ם or שו"ע or רמ"א etc., and brings הקבלות), there is no reason to prefer the Prof's הסבר to the other הסבר
לפיכך, נפל פיתא בבירא
And the Prof has no ראיה
What part of this do you disagree with?
The made up idea that Shapiro claimed the Gra didn't mean it.
So it doesn't bother you that Grossman had a killer critique and readers of Shapiro's response come away with the impression that he had said nothing of substance because Shapiro brushes it off with "I never said that"?
It doesn't bother you that Shapiro said something blatantly stupid and weaseled away from owning up when called out on it, through the use of sly and snide rebuttal tactics?
Ok, so this post is not for you. It seems the point of this post was to make exactly that observation. If you don't care, you don't care. Go find something else to read that is more to your interest set.
It doesn't bother you that Grossman had to lie about what Shapiro said to write his supposed killer critique?
Ok, so my comments aren't for you.
I believe that was acknowledged.
"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."
Nobody here is saying Grossman is perfect. So what? Does that change the point?
I'm not saying Shapiro is perfect either. I don't have a problem with people critiquing him at all. I just get annoyed when said critique morphs into a supposed takedown of his level of expertise generally. Especially when it's on the back of a malicious review in a Journal by a guy who apparently didn't read the book he's allegedly reviewing well enough to even quote it accurately.
RT has repeatedly said that his point is much larger than critiquing an isolated blog post. He holds Shapiro up for ridicule. And then people like you show up to crow about what an ignoramus Shapiro is. As you're doing now.
Did he write in his book that the גר"א brought a מקור מחז"ל?
If he did, then his מהלך has no point of departure
If he didn't, he is ignorant of basic מקורות
"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"
"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...
"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."
Except it doesn't. Getting back to the book, Shapiro made the point that it's odd that the ikkarim aren't listed *anywhere* as a unit in the Yad. Grossman turned that into evidence of Shapiro's "misconception of the structure of the Rambam’s work. The Rambam.. never made a statement in his Mishneh Torah which did not have a source in the Talmud."
But once you acknowledge that the Rambam wrote several *whole chapters* in the mishna torah which aren't found in the gemara, Shapiro's larger point is entirely valid. Your whole debunking is simply of a passing raya to his general observation.
"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."
Same response as above. Granted, Grossman was focusing on the argument from hilchos issurei biah. But that is almost completely tangential to the larger point that the 13 aren't listed ANYWHERE in the Yad as unit.
All acknowledged and discussed b'mkomo, sorry if you have a difficult time keeping track.
Shapiro wrote a 9 page essay in defense of this one point. That essay was the focus of this article. His other argument for his theory is mentioned and discussed peripherally, as it is, in the context of our discussion, peripheral.
"All acknowledged and discussed b'mkomo, sorry if you have a difficult time keeping track."
I don't have trouble keeping track. It wasn't 'a 9 page essay in defense of this one point.' It was part of a blog post. Shapiro writes a lot of things on Seforim blog. He meanders. Because, unlike, an essay, it's.....a blog post.
But I'm glad you're keeping track of page counts to go along with your scoreboard.
"His other argument for his theory is mentioned and discussed peripherally, as it is, in the context of our discussion, peripheral."
Whatever that means. Your 'discussion' claims to "cure us of any inclination we’ve ever had to take this smooth talking ignoramus seriously." It doesn't. Because you're fixating on things which are tangents of a tangent.
If someone writes שטויות והבלים, they certainly reflect on the way we view his מדרגה as serious person (ק"ו a ת"ח)
This is true even on tangents.
You're way too busy with Shapiro's madreigos. My point is that his central theses are very well supported with citations and fixating on tangents of tangents as proof that he shouldn't be taken seriously at all is ridiculous. I'm not interested in getting into a tzitzis checking contest with you. You can email him with all the tochacha and mussar you like.
You are being ridiculous. This argument presented by Shapiro isn’t a tangent. And his central thesis is completely unsupported.
It most certainly is a tangent. The book isn't even about the ikkarim at all per se. It's about sources which contradict it.
I have no personal interest in his מדרגות in מצוות (whether ציצית or any other מצווה), מלבד דיני ערבות of course.
AFAIK, he could be מדקדק במצוות
I was talking about his מדרגות in reading comp. and in writing correctly, coherently and honestly.
He's not. He eats Hebrew National.
I don't get the question of why the 13 aren't listed as unit in Mishnah Torah. They are all included in Mishnah Torah, but not as unit. Why should they be listed as a unit? Where did he get this idea from? Does he think that anytime something is said a certain way somewhere else in the Rambam's texts, and is not said that way in Mishnah Torah, there is a contradiction?
Shapiro didn't claim there was a 'contradiction.' He said it's odd that the ikkarim- THE IKKARIM- aren't listed as a unit anywhere in the Yad. Now go back and read Grossman's reply to that , and tell me who's being silly and why.
I don't have the book. Is the fact that Shapiro thinks it's odd being used as evidence that the Rambam retracted?
Yes. More or less his only evidence, in fact. (See footnote 23 above).
And footnote 28.
Especially, "Please don’t parse these quotes unless you read them in the context of the four pages referenced above."
That was a very substantive response.
I should have included this doozy from Grossman:
"Here, too, Shapiro indicates that he is unaware of the structure of the
Mishneh Torah. The entire work is an expansion of the 613 Mitzvos: The entire
work is introduced by Rambam’s Sefer haMitzvos which lists all 613 Mitzvos,
and each of the sections (Halachos) has a listing of the Mitzvos included
therein. Consequently, there is no place to highlight the Thirteen Principles
in Hilchos Yesodey haTorah, since there are explicit Mitzvos for only three of
them—emunah, yichud and avodah zarah, which he in fact does list in the
introduction to this section. He could not have listed all the rest since they are
not Mitzvos.47"
When you figure out how this relates to our discussion, let us know.
It relates to who ought to be taken seriously. You're analyzing blog posts which are a response to a response to a response as part of what you repeatedly claim is evidence of Shapiro's general cluelessness. If the standard of being taken seriously isn't met by Shapiro, it certainly isn't met by you or Grossman either.
What's your exact problem with what R. Grossman wrote here?
Where?
Sorry, I got lost in the threads. I see you were referring to what I said above.
Now to answer your question. As noted by Shapiro,( and as apparently conceded by RT,) the Rambam includes plenty of things in the Yad which are in now way an elaboration of the 613 mitvos. If someone claims otherwise, that's a sign that they're a whole lot more clueless than Shapiro is.
Probably what you quoted, wouldn’t you think?
Truthfully, this is getting a bit boring. We have already seen numerous examples of Shapiro's shoddy 'scholarship'! Now, we need to pour through even more obscure sources to see another example of it!
Regarding footnote 8.
It's perfectly clear in my humble opinion that Dr Shapiro at this point does indeed mean this. I do agree to the 2 points of rebuttal that you make.
However, I disagree with the third point. There are two separate argumentations he is making. They are not mutually exclusive.
On that note, that which you write:
"Two: Another possible question, which isn’t either Shapiro’s,...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."
as l said, I do think he made it clear that he is asking it.
I agree though that he did not "acknowledge the change from a strong internal question to a feeble a priori one."
The third wasn't a "point of rebuttal", it was an explanation of why I'm teitching him up the way I am. At any rate, I acknowledged the possibility of your understanding and explained why it's equally ridiculous. I think we're on the same page with regard to everything of substance.
As an aside, I think you are reading him far more pedantically than it is meant to be read. I honestly don't believe that at the time of writing he was distinguishing in his mind between between the nuances of the two questions. He jumps back and forth between them (as well as between several other irrelevancies) and does not seem to recognize the differences.
In analyzing it, I broke it down to the two points in order to assess each, but there's no indication whatsoever that he himself ever did so, or that he'd even understand what you and I are talking about here.
"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 Cohen"
As long as I'm getting a shout out, I may as well link to some of my own comments too. I'll note also that I stand by my point that you've completely bungled the Rosh Amana as well. Shapiro cited him accurately. I just can't track down that thread.
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/the-art-of-the-rebuttal-part-1/comment/16530984
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/the-art-of-the-rebuttal-part-1/comment/16681883
=====
"If all I’ve accomplished in this essay is convince you that the Maimonidean Retraction Theory is silly, I have failed. "
You haven't even done that. Especially since you made up the theory yourself.
"What’s far more important is to reevaluate who it is that we get our information from in the first place."
I actually agree with that. Truthfully, I hadn't even looked at Limits all that much till recently. It sat on my shelf along with a bunch of other stuff I read once upon a time. If not for you and R Grossman, I might never have bothered to look at it again. And I'm apparently not the only one. https://seforimblog.com/2020/03/reuven-elitzur-saul-lieberman-and-response-to-criticism-part-2/#comment-8142 Heck of job by you.
"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."
Again, I largely agree. I think Limits is best used as a reference work to look stuff up inside, if at all. Or people can use R Dovid Cohen's works. or Chemda Tova. There's plenty of quality charedi alternatives out there. The added benefit is that then they'll actually be aware of the genuine issues on their own, rather than having to rely on silly blog posts on Substack.
"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."
Note that his book really isn't mainly about the Rambam changing his mind or not. It's amusing how much you're harping on this.
"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."
If people have the time, people should check Shapiro's sources up inside. Not read blog posts which are busy trying to 'untangle' things.
What in heaven's name do you even think you mean by this sentence? Do you have stuff in mind when you write things like this, or do you just spin your snark generator and go with whatever it lands on?
I mean what I wrote. Read it again. Or don't. Or 'just spin your snark generator and go with whatever it lands on.'
"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."
Again, he wrote the ikkarim as part of a hakdama to a perek in mishnayos. Shapiro's point is that he doesn't list them in any similar such way in his code of Jewish law. To paraphrase you, 'I would think the Rambam mighta wanted to ensure that people don't have to jump around in his mishna torah to get clear what they need to believe. Like, maybe they should be in Yesodei hatorah ahead of a discussion about planets.'
"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."
That's *one* piece of evidence. (It's all of one paragraph in a 200 page book.) His main point is that the ikkarim aren't listed as a unit in the Yad anywhere. And, "Readers should examine Limits for more details. My thoughts in this matter were in the way of a suggestion, not an absolute conclusion, that I thought worthy of bringing to the attention of readers."
=====
"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."
Shapiro is tenured. He isn't in need of being published lest he perish. He blogs, lectures, leads tours, serves as scholar in residence etc. And le'shitascha, his fellow academics are too stupid to understand your geonishe upshluggs of him anyhow, so he needn't worry that anything will change.
You don't read footnotes, do you?
I do.
"That's *one* piece of evidence. (It's all of one paragraph in a 200 page book.) His main point is that the ikkarim aren't listed as a unit in the Yad anywhere."
Being that this point was addressed (where it belonged - in a footnote) what have you added with this comment? Snark generator acting up again?
If you have something of substance to respond to what was said in that footnote, go ahead.
Lol. Most of the post centers around that point. I quoted the footnote because it was the most concise formulation. I could equally have quoted half the actual post, but that seemed like overkill.
"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."
What's that supposed to mean??? He corrects R David Cohen because he cites a question from Shapiro which Shapiro says he never asked. Not sure what conspiracy theory you're trying to peddle here.
"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:"
Not quite....
" when asked to provide an example of someone who learns the sugya the way the professor does, our good friend Shaul Shapira confidentially [sic] pointed to R. Dovid Cohen16.
16 See here."
Indeed. People should see there.
=====
"I guess you see what you want to see."
I agree with that. I just disagree about who's the one seeing things
======
"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.)"
If your point is that people should read Shapiro's book, Grossman's reviews, Shapiro's responses, and yours, I'd be inclined to agree. Is it?
Thanks for stopping by.
I have no idea what you mean by any one of these comments, and I'm getting a strong vibe that neither do you. At any rate I think it's been long established that these backs and forths with you serve very little purpose. As a [different] great man once said, "Let the readers decide what they find more compelling."
Ah bi gezunt.
"I'm getting a strong vibe that neither do you."
Your entitled to your vibes, I guess.
"As a [different] great man once said, 'Let the readers decide what they find more compelling.'"
Agreed.
"Indeed. People should see there."
And what will they see other than you falling hook line and sinker for a non-source?
Very Shapiro-esque, your pathetic self defenses are, I must say?
"And what will they see other than you falling hook line and sinker for a non-source?"
They'll see what I wrote there. The conversation continued. And draw their own conclusions.
"your pathetic self defenses are, I must say?"
*Must*? certainly not. But you *can* keep saying it if makes you feel like you're accomplishing something.
“What's that supposed to mean??? He corrects R David Cohen because he cites a question from Shapiro which Shapiro says he never asked.”
Right. That’s like the whole point.
So what's the problem exactly? He was correct to do so.
Because he missed the point. That undermines his whole argument.
Undermines *what* argument? He never claimed that R Dovid Cohen asked why the Rambam doesn't include it. He explicitly *disclaimed* that. (As you *yourself* correctly pointed out!) He mentioned it as something which is loosely related related to the discussion. Which it manifestly is. There wasn't anything nefarious about his citing of it. For RT to claim, as he does in the post, that, "The professor is quick to reject Rav Cohen’s reformulation of his question, because it does not yield his desired conclusion....but the general flurry of source flinging seems to have effectively confused at least one Shapiro apologist" is absurd on its face. If I'm confused, that's my own problem, not Shapiro's
Now, as a *separate* matter, I happen to think that R Dovid Cohen's question indirectly does support Shapiro. See the thread which RT linked to. But whether I'm right or wrong about that is entirely beside the point.
Oh I don’t think it’s nefarious. I think he truly doesn’t get it, which I find similarly concerning.
On that separate matter see the thread RT linked where I explained why you’re wrong.
Okay, I disagree. On both points. As I state in that linked thread.
I think we're about at that point in our discussion where RT pops in to tell you what a moron I am and what a waste of time it is to try to reason with me. Stay tuned, I guess.
Actually he seems to have missed the ברייתא. So he is wrong, just like Shapiro. The difference is that the אשר למלך didn't double down on it when this was pointed out, unlike Shapiro.
His actual answer is very similar to the מחנה חיים.
To Shapiro it was, to the אשר למלך we have no record. No reason to assume he wouldn’t own up.