Seforim Blog by Dr. Marc Shapiro
[...] Returning to Maimonides and creation, I want to call attention to a very interesting article by R Meir Triebitz. It appears in Reshimu, vol. 1 no. 2 (2008), the journal of the so-called Hashkafa Circle. See here.
As explained in the preface to the first volume, this “Circle” aims to fill a gap in haredi yeshiva education by focusing on the classics of medieval Jewish philosophy which are pretty much ignored in contemporary haredi society. We thus have a situation where great talmudists and halakhists ignore major themes of Jewish philosophy, which were dealt with at length by the medieval sages. When there are theological discussions in haredi literature, they invariably reflect a very conservative position, often at variance with the major rishonim. I already touched on this issue in my conclusion to The Limits of Orthodox Theology, and if Triebitz and his group are successful this situation could be reversed.
However, they won’t be successful for the simple reason that the outlook of the medieval Jewish philosophers is opposed in so many ways to haredi ideology that it will never become part of the haredi curriculum. In fact, I don’t think it is possible to be a serious student of medieval Jewish philosophy and at the same time identify with any of the regnant haredi worldviews. (You might dress the part and send your children to haredi schools, but that is not the same thing as identifying with a worldview.) This is so for many reasons, primary of which is that medieval Jewish philosophy is about the search for truth. The papal model of haredi society, where the quest for truth is subordinated to the dictates of the religious authority figure, is diametrically opposed to what our great medieval philosophers taught.
Furthermore, the haredi notion that contemporary gedolim can sit in judgment of the views of the Rambam and other greats, and determine that their views are no longer “acceptable”, will be rejected out of hand by all followers of the philosophic tradition. It is therefore not surprising that when Artscroll was presented with a plan to publish Maimonides’ Guide in English, the response was a resounding no, with the explanation given that the Guide should not be found in a haredi home.[17]
R Dr Shapiro is correct, but still doesn't "get it". Once you say that aggadita has halachic impact, making decisions about which aggadic posissions are halachically permissable is normal halachic process.
ReplyDeleteThe same rabbis pass judgment on the Rambam's position all the time. It's called pasqening.
The question is the size of the overlap between aggadita and halakhah, if any. I believe there must be some. Since we have laws about how to treat heretics, there is a halachic concept of heresy that comprises part of the definition of "heretic". For stam yeinam, culpability may or may not be an issue -- itself a machloqes. So, the question of who believes something which places them outside the camp of believers has halachic impact.
The problem as I see it, if I may be so bold, is that:
1- They are using the words "apiqoreis" and "kofer" in both halachic and rhetoric senses without being clear when they're using which.
2- I don't think there is the same study of hashkafah before making those decisions that is invested in other halachic decisions. (Thus my admission that I am probably being overly bold.) We have people insisting that you believe some 18th cent hashkafic chiddush (eg: universal personal providence over every event) or you're a heretic. When in the halachic process do you require following a new position not supported by any rishon?
-micha
Marc Shapiro: "I don’t think it is possible to be a serious student of medieval Jewish philosophy and at the same time identify with any of the regnant haredi worldviews. This is so for many reasons, primary of which is that medieval Jewish philosophy is about the search for truth. The papal model of haredi society, where the quest for truth is subordinated to the dictates of the religious authority figure"
ReplyDeleteIOW, Marc is saying that the "papal authority" of the hareidi society of R. Moshe Feinstein, R. S.Z. Auerbach, R. Elyashev, R. M. Gifter, R. Avraham Pam, etc. etc. etc. subordinates the truth.
Let us remember that this is the same Marc Shapiro who over here said about Rav Elazar Menachem Man Shach zt"l:
"everything that comes out of his mouth is criticism."
"He does not believe in building but in destroying."
"His views have infected the Haredi community."
"He has no conception of
Jewish history"
"He also hates hesder because their students actually get a job."
"We should not even take Rav Shach's opinion into consideration."
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@ Joseph
ReplyDeleteThis entire website is called Daas Torah, and many of the sources posted, as well as our discussions focus on the issues surrounding authority of the Rabbis, whether Daat Torah is an exclusive and/ or infallible position, whether science/ metziut etc can change things.
A discussion means people can question these concepts, and this is usually done within the framework of bringing Jewish sources, although they can sometimes be secular ones.
And another question I would ask is why are haredim given permission to criticise and delegitimise their opponents?
If you say they have Daas Torah, then it is a circular and papal argument.
@Joseph
ReplyDeleteThanks for the link to Dr. Shapiro's post. It was a breath of fresh air, and a nice couterpoint to the countless examples of prominent MO folks rolling over and playing dead when faced with harsh criticism from Haredi leaders.
Also, while the post was impassioned, I didn't see any obnoxiousness or low blows. Every statement about Rav Shach zt"l was backed up by examples. If every online cri de coeur was written this well, the world would be a better place.
Sure he gets it. He writes, "Furthermore, the haredi notion that contemporary gedolim can sit in judgment of the views of the Rambam and other greats, and determine that their views are no longer “acceptable”, will be rejected out of hand by all followers of the philosophic tradition."
ReplyDeleteAs I see it what I bolded is the main point. Which part of that do you disagree with?
Eddie,
ReplyDeleteI think the quotes from Prof Shapiro do a good job of being magdir where he is coming from. He can say what he wants but there is nothing wrong with Joseph offering some context. Rambam, in effect, declared other major rishonim apikorsim, so why can't, say, Rav Shach do the same? Many of out modern chasidim of the philosophical rishonim are very selective in their enthusiasm.
Michoel
@Eddie -
ReplyDeleteSomeone saying about the Torah leader of the generation "He does not believe in building but in destroying", "He also hates hesder", "everything that comes out of his mouth is criticism", "We should not even take Rav Shach's opinion into consideration", etc. etc. is not a person to be taken seriously.
S asks: Sure he gets it. He writes, "Furthermore, the haredi notion that contemporary gedolim can ... determine that their views are no longer “acceptable”, will be rejected out of hand by all followers of the philosophic tradition."
ReplyDeleteAs I see it what I bolded is the main point. Which part of that do you disagree with?
But what I wrote was: R Dr Shapiro is correct, but still doesn't "get it".
I agree with the thesis. I disagree with how he gets there. I don't think Dr Shapiro gets the chareidi dynamic in play. They are using halachic mechanism, saying that it's prohibited to believe "X". Thus, his use of a historian's methodology is out of place. Law is based upon authority, precedent, and yet allows for evolution.
For millennia, tefillin came in at least two styles -- both the layouts we call "Rashi" and "Rabbeinu Tam" were common. Today, we hold like Rashi, and if you only wear Rabbeinu Tam tefillin one day, you didn't fulfill your obligation. Historical research proving that this ruling wasn't always true; accusing the later rishonim of "passing judgment" on the tefillin as worn by Rabbeinu Tam, by tannaim and amoraim, even by many neviim (!) is simply misplaced.
Similarly here. They aren't making a statement of fact, but a statement of law. In the past, perhaps, someone who believed in an Incarnate God could handle your wine and you could still drink it. Today, it depends on how he reached the belief, if you hold like the Ridbaz, etc...
So, even though I agree with his conclusion, I do so because my posqim and I do not find the ruling supportable. (And thus what's relevant is which rishonim held that believe in an Incarnate God is permissible, not which if any actually did so.) The argument used in the original post is simply a confusion of wissenschaft and derekh hapesaq.
I said "still doesn't get it", BTW, because Dr Shapiro and I (and people better informed than I, including R YG Bechhofer, R Gil Student, and others [RDE, were you on-list yet?], as well as a couple in his support, such as Dr Meir Shinnar) had this same exchange on Avodah based on his article in Tradition, well before his book came out.
As for Dr Marc Shapiro's opinion of R' Shach... Since R' Shach went on public record making disparaging remarks about R' Soloveitchik, one might make an argument that kavod harav actually creates an obligation for R' Soloveitchik's talmidim to respond in kind.
Last, it was noted this blog is called "Daas Torah". As is the sefer. The first sefer "Daas Torah" is all about the actual hashkafos of the classical sources from Chazal to the 20th cent. To this reader, its thesis (if you could use that term for a collection of quotes) is about how real "daas Torah" differs from the hypersimplified concept of today.
-micha
Joseph,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure if the linked email from R' Marc Shapiro helps or hinders your argument. You ought to place your last quote from that email in its proper context by also including the sentence that precedes it:
"When it comes to gedolim we should consult R. Eliashiv, R. Shlomo Zalman, the chief Rabbis, R. Ovadia etc. We should not even take Rav Shach's opinion into consideration."
R. Eliashiv and R. Shlomo Zalman are Chareidim.
ReplyDeleteMarc's "papal model of haredi society" are applicable to R. Eliashiv and R. Shlomo Zalman. According to Shapiro, by R. Eliashiv and R. Shlomo Zalman "the quest for truth is subordinated to the dictates of the religious authority".
Ha!Ha!That article shapiro wrote is to funny.These years the mo and many others are scrambling all other the place and saying chabad is out of orthodox judaism.Of course they now don't defend chabad.And quite a few people have told sadly that rav shach forsaw the situation in chabad these days.The same ones who blasted him then.Shapiro gets even worse with his pssing etc..
ReplyDeleteQuite the contrary,while chabad pour it's venom on rav shach till today(i know this personaly).Rav shach davened for the lubavitcher rebbe when he was ill.As for his ignorance about saying reb moshe disagreed with him.First of all,it doesn't mean r' moshe approved halachcally of the raid.Secondly,r' moshe held rav shach was the gadol hador in eretz yisroel,and couldn't sleep at night because he felt he didnt adress him with enough kavod years bfore rav hach was famous.
ReplyDeleteDoes shapiro now agree with the danger of oslo,which rav shach opposed,(and the govt. which did it)i wonder?And does he know there were young men so moved by rav shachs famous speech,they became ba'alei tshuvah.And doesn't he seem silly,when he takes dati leumi ideolgy as the way,and evreything else is not the way.
ReplyDeleteI wonder what shapiro would say if he knew of thevery harsh language r' shlomo zalman wrote about thr mamzirim isssur.Would he still praise him?As for saying no other gadol has a great problem with chabad,it seems he's ignorant of opionslike rav hutner,for example.
ReplyDelete>I agree with the thesis. I disagree with how he gets there. I don't think Dr Shapiro gets the chareidi dynamic in play. They are using halachic mechanism, saying that it's prohibited to believe "X". Thus, his use of a historian's methodology is out of place. Law is based upon authority, precedent, and yet allows for evolution.
ReplyDeleteI think he does get it (there's more to him than published articles and blog posts) but I will say that even if he doesn't, the point is that he's talking about "followers of the philosophic tradition." He's saying that these Jews can't get down with the Chareidi - or any - mode of posekim deciding hashkfah. You're saying, well, hashkafah is within the purvue of the posek (who of course really ought to know hashkafah in order to pasken). The "followers of the philosophic tradition" don't form their de'os based on what posekim say are permitted views. This is why you can only be a *secret* follower of the philosophic tradition in Chareidi society, or at least a marginal voice within that society. You can't be very loud and open about the fact that the gedolim do not decide your hashkafah for you. This means that there can never be a mass Maimonidean movement in Chareidi society, where the operative principle is that the masses are asses, and most of the gedolim are too - to be perfectly blunt, for this is what Maimonideans surely must think.
S:
ReplyDeleteAs I wrote in my earlier comment: "They aren't making a statement of fact, but a statement of law. In the past, perhaps, someone who believed in an Incarnate God could handle your wine and you could still drink it. Today, it depends on how he reached the belief, if you hold like the Ridbaz, etc...
Halakhah and aggadita do overlap. In Hilkhos Teshuvah 3:7-8 the Rambam describes three halachic categories of heretic, the min, the apiqoreis and the kofeir. Included in each definition of a category of people is the definition of the heresy they believe. (There are other criteria, but that's a subject of machloqes.) As I said en passant about stam yeinam, the limits of hashkafah are actually a halachic issue.
BTW, between those three categories, 11 of the 13 articles of faith are incuded. (Denial of the mashiach and the resurrection are listed in 5:6 as depriving someone of the World to Come, but not included in a category of heretic.) The Rambam didn't just speculate philosophically, he considered it within a halachic context. As did Rabbeinu Yonah, the Ramban, etc...
What you called "the Chareidi - or any - mode of posekim deciding hashkfah" is actually also part of being a "follower of the philosophic tradition" of the Rambam.
I think the proper mode in which to object is not the claim that the limits of philosophic speculation is free from halachic process. Rather, it's to point out that their positions are unsupportable halachically, aside from posing philosophical problems. You can't say that it's prohibited to follow the majority of rishonim against something even Lubavitcher Rebbe called a chiddush of the Baal Shem Tov's (to repeat the example of universal Divine Providence). Or that beliefs that were commonplace for millennia into my childhood (such as the notion that the universe is far older than 6000 years) are now prohibited. There is simply no halachic mechanism for doing so.
-micha