https://seforimblog.com/2007/08/marc-b-shapiro-forgery-and-halakhic-2/
In The Limits of Orthodox Theology I quoted the following comment of R. Bezalel Naor, who was quoting his teacher, the Gaon R. Shlomo Fisher of Jerusalem: “The truth, known to Torah scholars, is that Maimonides’ formulation of the tenets of Jewish belief is far from universally accepted.” For those who don’t know, R. Fisher is one of the gedolim of our time, and you can see many of his shiurim on yeshiva.org.il. Many of these shiurim focus on Talmud (and he has published the great rabbinic work, Beit Yishai), but R. Fisher is also the only one of our gedolim who is an expert in Jewish philosophy. This explains why his Derashot Beit Yishai are very different than other collections of derashot. Professor Zev Harvey told me that from R. Fisher’s edition of Crescas’ Or ha-Shem, it is clear that he used Wolfson’s Hebrew text found in Crescas’ Critique of Aristotle.[1]
Someone I know currently attends R. Fisher’s weekly shiur on Avnei Miluim, the last half-hour of which is devoted to issues of hashkafah. Interestingly enough, he reported to me that a few weeks ago R. Fisher declared that he believes the Rambam abandoned his system of 13 Principles, the proof being that they are never mentioned as a unit in the Mishneh Torah.[2] In my book, I noted that R. Shlomo Goren held the same view. R. Goren also makes another interesting point, that while in the Commentary on the Mishnah Maimonides requires one to actually believe in certain principles, in the Mishneh Torah he only requires you not to deny any principles. One who has never heard of a principle obviously does not believe in it, which makes him a heretic according to the Commentary on the Mishnah. But according to the Mishneh Torah, since this person does not actually deny the principle, he is not regarded as a heretic.
OK, great! So reform and conservative are back in the Torah fold, since there is no requirement to believe the Torah was written by Moses!
ReplyDeleteThey were always considered Jewish, That is not the issue it is what is Judaism?
ReplyDeleteThis is stated clearly by Rambam and Chazon Ish
Muddying waters. I said "back in the Torah fold" -
ReplyDeleteRambam didn't say that deniers of the Torah's Divine /Mosaic prohetic authorship are still part of Judaism.
It's like this -
ReplyDeleteMarc Shapiro says something, and you like him, so you publish and it's fine and dandy.
cardozo, Bigman, rackman (who you don't like) etc say exactly the same thing, and it is outside of Orthodoxy, so you publish people like Gordimer to attack them.
This is yet another fascinating refutation of "Judaism has never changed!"
ReplyDeletein the RMF Smoking psak, the "teleology" was that since some of ur greatest have given in to the yetzer hara of smoking, then we can't forbid it".
ReplyDeleteNow we have basically, avodah zarah, reform, apikorsus altogether, but since a) some respected rabbonim have succumbed, and b) it is KA that is calling them out, then basically everything is muttar.
Nope!
ReplyDeleteNope!
ReplyDeleteTime for you to study reading comprehension
He didn't say they weren't as long as it wasn't done as an act ofr ebellion
ReplyDeleteWhen Shapiro publishes something, it's usually accompanies by a couple dozen footnotes supporting his point. Cardozo usually offers opinions with little or no supporting footnotes.
ReplyDeleteHe writes books. The short blog pieces are less academic
ReplyDeleteDepends.
ReplyDeleteThere are three individuals who are considered as one "who denies the Torah":
Hilchot teshuva 3
a) one who says Torah, even one verse or one word, is not from God. If he says: "Moses made these statements independently," he is denying the Torah.
But...
Any wicked person, apostate, or the like, who repents, whether in an open, revealed manner or in private, will be accepted as implied by [Jeremiah 3:22] "Return, faithless children." [We may infer] that even if one is still faithless, as obvious from the fact that he repents in private and not in public, his Teshuvah will be accepted.
Rav Chaim says nebach an apikores, is still an. Apikores
I've never liked the "must've been a forgery" or "it was only for that generation" excuses. They seem meant to avoid challenging thinking.
ReplyDeleteThis is also an interesting point:
ReplyDelete"R. Goren also makes another interesting point,
that while in the Commentary on the Mishnah Maimonides requires one to
actually believe in certain principles, in the Mishneh Torah he only
requires you not to deny any principles. One who has never heard of a
principle obviously does not believe in it, which makes him a heretic
according to the Commentary on the Mishnah. But according to the Mishneh
Torah, since this person does not actually deny the principle, he is
not regarded as a heretic."
Did Maimonides' thought evolve, or are they 2 different concepts? Perhaps the message from the Mishnah is different from the halacha he determines from the gemara.
Or to attain Olam haba , one must accept the 13 ikkarim. To avoid being an apikores, one must avoid denying them (and the principles in the Ya are slightly different from the 13 ikkarim)
One of the hidden lights of the Yeshiva world, Rav Yaakov Weinberg ztl also wrote a small book on the 13 principles, and implies something most interesting - he points out that Chazal counted the midpoint of the Torah, ie with equal number of letters on either side. The Torah we have today, that midpoint is not actually numerically the midpoint - which means that the Torah has changed since it was counted back then [unless they made an error]. He states that Maimonides knew this but still claimed that the Torah has not changed!