“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.
“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.
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.
“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."
"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.
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."
"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.
"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.
"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?
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.
“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.
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.
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.
“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."
"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.
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."
"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.
"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.
"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?