This is good, but even more revealing of Dr. Shapiro's intellectual tactics is his responses. It's worthwhile to read them, just to learn the mehalech.
Any casual reader would think that Shapiro totally destroyed Grossman with his responses. It takes a lot of careful reading and rereading to realize he's pulling the same shtick in the responses as he does in the original.
In my opinion, Grossman's rebuttal to the responses is even more important reading than this piece here. Because it demonstrates Shapiro's style in not only spinning theories but also defending them by intimidation and sophistry.
In the work תורה שלימה, vol 16, the author has a very lengthy discussion about this topic. The author concludes that R. Moshe Taku actually does argue on the Rambam about this. Not that R. Moshe believes that Hashem has a physical form (c"v), rather, that Hashem took on some sort of physical form to appear to a navi. This does not mean that he believed that Hasham has a permanent physical form. This can be found in תורה שלימה, vol 16, on page 288. ( www.hebrewbooks.org/51462 )This is a very long read, and the author has very many citations. I did not look all of them up, but I assume that his quotes are accurate (unlike Shapiro).
Either way, this does not detract from R. Grossman's point. R. Moshe Taku is certainly in the minority opinion about this. It would still be wrong for Shapiro to say that many people argued on the Rambam. Most agreed to the Rambam about this.
This is good, but even more revealing of Dr. Shapiro's intellectual tactics is his responses. It's worthwhile to read them, just to learn the mehalech.
Any casual reader would think that Shapiro totally destroyed Grossman with his responses. It takes a lot of careful reading and rereading to realize he's pulling the same shtick in the responses as he does in the original.
In my opinion, Grossman's rebuttal to the responses is even more important reading than this piece here. Because it demonstrates Shapiro's style in not only spinning theories but also defending them by intimidation and sophistry.
https://www.academia.edu/91423182/PRE_CONCEIVED_CONCLUSIONS_A_Rejoinder_Regarding_The_Limits_of_Orthodox_Theology
Prof. MS has responded
https://seforimblog.com/2023/05/final-response/
Unfortunately, comments are closed (for reasons explained in the response).
I think that he still does not understand the main problems.
IYH we will be posting a response here on Irrationalist Modoxism.
https://seforimblog.com/2023/05/final-response/
Regarding the quotes from R. Moshe Taku.
In the work תורה שלימה, vol 16, the author has a very lengthy discussion about this topic. The author concludes that R. Moshe Taku actually does argue on the Rambam about this. Not that R. Moshe believes that Hashem has a physical form (c"v), rather, that Hashem took on some sort of physical form to appear to a navi. This does not mean that he believed that Hasham has a permanent physical form. This can be found in תורה שלימה, vol 16, on page 288. ( www.hebrewbooks.org/51462 )This is a very long read, and the author has very many citations. I did not look all of them up, but I assume that his quotes are accurate (unlike Shapiro).
Either way, this does not detract from R. Grossman's point. R. Moshe Taku is certainly in the minority opinion about this. It would still be wrong for Shapiro to say that many people argued on the Rambam. Most agreed to the Rambam about this.