76 JEWISH ACTION Summer 5767/2007

Books

Reviewed by Zev Leff

Although The Limits of OrthodoxTheology: Maimonides’ ThirteenPrinciples Reappraised by Marc

B. Shapiro and Even Shisiya on theThirteen Principles of the Rambam(Hebrew) by Rabbi Yochanan MeirBechhofer are both dedicated to dis-cussing Rambam’s Thirteen Principles ofFaith, as formulated in his commentaryto the Mishnah, they do so from verydifferent perspectives.

Rabbi Bechhofer presents scholar-ly/halachic and hashkafic explanationsfor each principle, which are largelybased on the insights of his mentor,Rabbi Shmuel Yaakov Weinberg, thelate rosh yeshivah of Ner IsraelRabbinical College in Baltimore.

The author is mainly concernedwith demonstrating the role theThirteen Principles play in Jewish theol-ogy. Since the entire Torah was dictatedby God, one would think that every-thing in the Torah is of equal signifi-cance. Nevertheless, Rambam held thatthere is room for defining principles offaith. (The Chatam Sofer in his respon-sa [Yoreh Deah 356] cites a source evenearlier than Rambam who refers toThirteen Principles of Faith—albeit thesource does not identify exactly whatthe principles are.)

Rabbi Bechhofer cites RabbiWeinberg’s opinion that the ThirteenPrinciples do not define the Jewish reli-gion. That purpose would be served bythree basic principles, as Rabbi YosefAlbo writes in Sefer Ha’ikarim: beliefin God, belief in the Divine source ofthe Torah and the concept of rewardand punishment.

The Thirteen Principles thatRambam set forth point to why theTorah is the absolute truth.Additionally, they define the Jewish peo-ple and what creates the faith communi-ty. In other words, the Principles definewho is within the faith community ofKlal Yisrael, and who, by virtue of notaccepting some of these truths, is out-side of this community.

Rabbi Bechhofer proceeds toexamine each of the Thirteen Principles.His stated purpose in writing this expo-sition is “to explain in a comprehensivemanner how these Principles are onesystem and each Principle is a necessarycomponent to accepting the Torah astruth” (p. 19; my translation).

He also explains that each ofthese principles is based on tradition

and Revelation rather than on philo-sophical investigation. Rabbi Bechhofertherefore limits his discussion of thesePrinciples to sources that are withinTorah tradition.

Dr. Shapiro also examines each ofthe Thirteen Principles in a comprehen-sive and scholarly manner. He informsus that his work was written inresponse to an article by RabbiYehudah Parnes that appeared inYeshiva University’s Torah U-MaddaJournal. In the article, Rabbi Parnesargues that “heresy is defined by theThirteen Principles of Maimonides.”

Dr. Shapiro acknowledges thatthe underlying assumption that the

Thirteen Principles are the bedrock ofOrthodoxy has never been openly chal-lenged in modern times by those who iden-tify with Orthodoxy (pp. 1-2).

Nevertheless, Dr. Shapiro wrotean article (which was published in thatsame journal and which subsequentlyserved as the basis for this expandedwork) in response to Rabbi Parnes withthe purpose of showing that

traditional Jewish theology hasallowed for much more latitude than

Rabbi Leff is the rav of Moshav Matityahuand the rosh yeshivah of Yeshiva GedolahMatityahu. He teaches in many yeshivot andseminaries and adult education centers inEretz Yisrael, and lectures around the world.He is the author of Outlooks and Insights:On the Weekly Torah Portion (Brooklyn,1995).

The Limits of Orthodox Theology:Maimonides’ ThirteenPrinciples ReappraisedBy Marc B. ShapiroThe Littman Libraryof Jewish CivilizationOxford, 2004221 pages

Even Shisiya on theThirteen Principles of the Rambam By Rabbi Yochanan Meir BechhoferYefe Nof-Y. PozenJerusalem, 5765124 pages

SumFnl07 6/5/07 1:55 PM Page 76

Summer 5767/2007 JEWISH ACTION 77

found in the Thirteen Principles. As aresult, many outstanding sages did notregard the Thirteen Principles as the lastword in Jewish theology. Indeed, there is ahistory of opposition to Maimonides’Principles among the ranks of traditional,or as it is called in modern times,Orthodox Judaism (p. 2).

Similarly, in concluding his book,Dr. Shapiro writes:

I wrote this book to examine theclaim that Maimonides’ Principles are thelast word in Jewish theology. Simply bylooking at traditional Jewish sources, Ibelieve it has been clearly demonstratedthat many of his Principles were notregarded as authoritative, either before histime or afterwards. The fact thatMaimonides placed the stamp of apostasyon anyone who disagreed with hisPrinciples did not frighten away numerousgreat sages from their search for truth. Thelesson for moderns is clear (p. 158).

After reading Dr. Shapiro’s work,I am not convinced that he “clearlydemonstrated” anything more than thefact that in regard to the ThirteenPrinciples, as in all areas of Torah, dif-ferences of opinion have always existed.This is the manner in which the Torahsages who are entrusted with the trans-mission of the Oral Law develop anddecide that law. Nevertheless, this doesnot preclude a consensus emergingsubsequent to the conflicts of opinion.That is to say, even though there weredifferences of opinion concerning theThirteen Principles in the MiddleAges, today the Principles are univer-sally accepted.

Dr. Shapiro argues thatsince the sources of Jewish theology

are not part of the curriculum in yeshivot,the students know nothing about them.Nor is the typical posek, who has masteredthe Talmud, codes and responsa,acquainted with the theological literature,and he often does not even recognize theissues (p. 157).

It should be noted that RabbiWeinberg, who delivered extensive talkson the Thirteen Principles at Ner Israeland elsewhere, and Rabbi Bechhofer areboth the products of yeshivot. SeriousTalmudic students study musar, emu-

nah, Chumash, Tanach, tefillah as wellas other so-called “theological litera-ture,” despite the fact that these sub-jects are not part of the official yeshivahcurriculum. These students approachsuch subjects from the classical Jewishsources, and they are capable of doingso because they have an extensive anddeep understanding of both the Oraland the Written Law. Is Dr. Shapirounaware of the musar and hashkafahva’adim that take place in every yeshiv-ah? Is he unacquainted with the abun-dance of sefarim published every yearon a variety of topics related to theolo-gy, written by famous roshei yeshivah aswell as by serious young Talmudicscholars, both in Israel and in the

Diaspora? Our scholars are very awareof Jewish theology; nevertheless, theyarrived at a consensus that Rambam’sPrinciples should be accepted.

Every serious yeshivah studentknows that there were disagreements asto whether the Thirteen Principles were,in fact, beneficial to posit, and if so,which ones were to be consideredPrinciples. Is there a serious yeshivahstudent who is ignorant of Rabbi YosefAlbo’s Sefer Ha’ikarim or Rabbi Moshede Trani’s Beit Elokim? Yes, there weredisagreements as to what kind of disbe-lief rendered one a heretic (e.g., openrebellion, erroneous intellectual conclu-sions or ignorance). Yet while there weredisagreements with regard to the variousdetails and the parameters of thePrinciples, the Thirteen Principles havebeen accepted in their general form asthe expression of Torah Judaism, and, asstated above, one who denies any ofthem is outside the pale of the faithcommunity of Torah Judaism. For

example, the conviction that God is acorporeal being like any other corporalbeing is a belief that is outside the realmof Judaism, despite the fact that theSages do not agree whether to deem onea heretic for harboring this belief.Hence, the principle is true, although itsexact parameters are subject to thedebate of Torah scholars.

This situation is comparable tothat which occurred with the publica-tion of the Shulchan Aruch. Despite thefact that there was debate among bona-fide Torah scholars as to the benefitand propriety of creating a code ofJewish law, and despite the fact thatthere are instances where the rulings ofthe Shulchan Aruch have not beenaccepted, the Shulchan Aruch overallhas been accepted by Klal Yisrael—itssages and the rank and file of observantJews—and has therefore become thedefinitive code of Jewish observance.Similarly, over the generations, theThirteen Principles have been acceptedas the definitive code of Jewish belief,albeit not every detail of Rambam’spresentation of them has been accept-ed. Hence, Yigdal and the ThirteenPrinciples are recited by most Jewsevery day in Shacharit.

Dr. Shapiro admits that he is not atheologian, but rather an intellectualhistorian (p. 158). Indeed, perhaps thisexplains why he misunderstands somany Torah sources. While one of theThirteen Principles is that the entireTorah that was handed to MosheRabbeinu is God-given, Dr. Shapirotries to show how certain parts of theTorah are “post-Mosaic.” He states:

In his commentary on Numbers22:1, Rashbam focuses on the phrase‘beyond the Jordan,’ … the difficulty isthat in Moses’ day the Israelites had not yetentered the Promised Land and the term‘beyond the Jordan’ would not have beenused for the side of the Jordan on whichthey were encamped….

Dr. Shapiro concludesIn other words, this phrase was only

added after Moses’ death, which occurredbefore the Israelites crossed the Jordan.

This explanation is a far cry fromthat of Rashbam, who does not even

Since every word of Torah isDivine, one would think thateverything in the Torah is of

equal significance.Nevertheless, Rambam held

that there is room for definingprinciples of faith.

SumFnl07 6/5/07 1:55 PM Page 77

78 JEWISH ACTION Summer 5767/2007

intimate when this section was written.Rather, Rashbam simply explains that“beyond the Jordan” was written toreflect what would be in the future, justas other parts of the Torah are writtenprophetically (see Ketubot 10b).

In a similar vein, Dr. Shapiroinforms us that

according to Midrash tanhuma andYalkut hamakhiri, it was the Men of theGreat Assembly who changed certainwords in the Torah (p. 98).

What Dr. Shapiro fails to mentionis that those portions of the Tanchumaand Yalkut are not found in most earlyeditions, as the Tzeidah Laderech notes(quoted by Etz Yosef in Beshalach, no.16). The Meor Ainayim (also quoted byEtz Yosef ) also points this out when hestates that the words “the Men of theGreat Assembly” in the midrash werenot originally there, and are an amend-ment by a later source.

In yet another attempt to disproveRambam’s Principles, Dr. Shapiro con-tends that

the curses in Deuteronomy originat-ed with Moses, not God, [as] R. NissimGerondi writes: “God agreed that they bewritten in the Torah.”

Dr. Shapiro then surmises:It is hard to see how this approach,

in which God is no longer directing butconcurring, can be brought in line withMaimonides’ insistence that the entireTorah was prophetically revealed (p. 113).

Dr. Shapiro completely misunder-stands this statement by RabbeinuNissim. Much of the narratives in theTorah contain passages that were statedby individuals—such as Avraham,Pharaoh, Hagar, Lavan and countlessothers. When God gave the Torah, Hechose which of these individuals’ wordswould be included and exactly how theywould be phrased; He then dictatedthem to Moshe. These words subse-quently became Torah. RabbeinuNissim is saying that Moshe, in fact,said the curses on his own and Godthen agreed to dictate them as Torah.

Dr. Shapiro maintains that Moshehad a role “in the authorship of theTorah” and that God accepted this (p.

114). To support this claim, Dr. Shapiroquotes a midrash hagadol from Shemot:

Rabbi Samuel Bar Nahmani said:“Why does it say concerning each thing[Moses did] As the Lord commandedMoses? This may be compared to [the caseof] a king who commanded his servant,saying to him, ‘Build me a palace.’ Theservant expertly built him a great andspectacular palace. He wrote on everything[he built] the name of the king. When hefinished, the king entered and saw it andwas very pleased. He said: ‘All this honourhas my servant done me, includinginscribing my name on every place, yetwhile I am inside, he is outside! Call himthat he may come right in.’ So, too, whenMoses finished the work of the Tabernacle,and he wrote in every section, As the Lordcommanded Moses, God appeared andHis Shekhinah dwelt in it [theTabernacle] and He saw it and it pleasedHim…. He said: ‘The son of Amram

[Moses] has done me all this honour andhe is outside! He is worthy to enter Mypresence and come under the shade of MyShekhinah” (pp. 114-115).

According to Dr. Shapiro, Goddid not make specific requests, butMoshe wrote “as the Lord commanded”after each section, implying that Godhad done so. Dr. Shapiro writes:

In other words, Moses independentlyadded the phrase, “Even as the Lord com-manded Moses,” and because of this hewas rewarded. Using the words of R.Nissim, we can say that God agreed thatthese words should appear in the Torah,but they certainly were not dictated toMoses in the scribal fashion described byMaimonides (p. 115).

We can explain this midrash thesame way we explained RabbeinuNissim in the previous citation. Eventhough various Biblical personalitiesmay have initiated certain statements,God ultimately made the choice toinclude them in the Torah. Those state-ments then became God’s words. Thisin no way contradicts Rambam’s asser-tion that every word of Torah is writtenby God. Incidentally, this midrash alsoappears in Vayikra Rabba 1-7. There,the Maharzav (Rabbi Zev WolfEinhorn) offers a completely differentexplanation. He rejects the notion thatit was Moshe who wrote the words “asthe Lord commanded Moses” andexplains that there is not an exact corre-lation between the mashal (parable) inthe midrash and the nimshal (moral). Inthe mashal, the servant constructed amagnificent palace on his own,although he gave credit to the king,from whom he received the originalorder. Moshe, on the other hand, builtthe mishkan exactly as he was com-manded, down to the last detail.Everything that Moshe did was to fulfillthe will of God; God wanted the worldto know of Moshe’s meticulous fulfill-ment of His commandments so Heinstructed Moshe to write “as the Lordcommanded Moses” each time.

Yet another example of Dr.Shapiro’s misunderstanding of Torahsources concerns aggadah, which isdefined by Chazal as the part of Torahthat has no halachic implications,“[things] not permitted or prohibited,defiled or pure, guilty or innocent”(Yerushalmi, Horiot 3-8). In otherwords, one cannot derive pesak fromaggadah. In the same manner, Dr.Shapiro seeks to apply this approach tomatters of emunah and bitachon.However, faith and belief are mitzvotlike all other mitzvot. Hence, thehalachic decision-making processapplies to matters of faith in the way itdoes to other mitzvot. While Dr.Shapiro acknowledges that both theChatam Sofer (Yoreh Deah 356) andRabbi Avraham Yitzchak HaKohenKook clearly state that matters of faith

I am not convinced that Dr.Shapiro “clearly demonstrat-ed” anything more than the

fact that in regard to theThirteen Principles, as in allareas of Torah, differences ofopinions have always existed.

SumFnl07 6/5/07 1:55 PM Page 78

Summer 5767/2007 JEWISH ACTION 79

are subject to pesak (p. 142, note 15), hegoes on to declare that he is unaware ofany Rishon who maintains this view,and proceeds to negate this opinion.

Evidently, the Chatam Sofer—with his vast Talmudic knowledge—believed that the fact that matters offaith are amenable to pesak was an obvi-ous truth that needed no corroboration.Dr. Shapiro concludes that

a separate study is needed in order toprovide a comprehensive analysis of viewsof Rishonim and Aharonim concerningwhether matters of belief … can be decid-ed in a halakhic fashion.

The existence of such a study willnot be the deciding factor as to thehalachic application of this rule to mat-ters of belief. Rather, the majority ofqualified posekim who are intuitivelyaccepted as such by the majority ofTorah observant Jewry will in fact haveto decide what the rule is, and when itapplies, for this is also halachah.

Dr. Shapiro subsequently goes onto make a brazen attack on RabbiMoshe Feinstein. Alleging that RavMoshe was unaware of Maimonides’philosophical views, Dr. Shapiro states:

Although R. Moses Feinstein was thegreatest posek of his time, he seems to havehad no knowledge of Maimonidean phi-losophy. He was therefore able to state thatMaimonides believed in the protectivepower of holy names and the names ofangels, as used in amulets. ForMaimonides’ rejection of this, see his com-mentary on Mishnah Sotah 7: 4 andGuide i. 61-2. (p. 156, note 1).

Dr. Shapiro evidently misunder-stood Rav Moshe’s responsum (YD part2, p. 239), as well as the Rambam, bothin his commentary to the Mishnah andin his Guide for the Perplexed. Before Iexplain what Rambam and Rav Mosheactually said, let’s assume that Rambamdid, in fact, dispute the protectivepower of God’s names, as Dr. Shapiroclaims. And let’s assume that RavMoshe never learned Guide for thePerplexed. But is it likely that RavMoshe was also unaware of Rambam’scommentary to the Mishnah?

Obviously, Rambam’s commentary tothe Mishnah is the domain of ahalachist and Talmudist, even accordingto Dr. Shapiro. Perhaps Rav Moshe heldthat Rambam’s words in the MishnehTorah superseded halachically his wordsin the commentary to the Mishnah(Hilchot Mezuzah 5:4)? (In the former,Rambam rules that God’s name“Shakkai” should be placed on the out-side of the mezuzah, indicating hisbelief that the Shem does have protectivepower.) Many times there are conflictsbetween the Mishneh Torah and thecommentary to the Mishnah, and usual-ly the Mishneh Torah is considered themore authoritative.

But we do not need to resort tothis line of reasoning. Rambam doesnot dispute the protective power ofGod’s holy names. A simple reading ofboth sources reveals that Rambam isactually defining what in fact consti-tutes a name of God. He says that peo-ple think that combinations of lettersfrom verses constitute the names ofGod that have magical powers. This,says Rambam, is a view held by foolsand amulet writers who use the lettercombinations as God’s name. In fact,God’s names are the descriptive namesmentioned in the Torah and codified inthe Talmud as the seven names that oneis prohibited to erase.

Rambam never disputes theirability to protect; hence he says that itis customary to write God’s name“Shakkai” on the outside of themezuzah and not on the inside.Similarly, Rambam says that amuletsthat contain God’s name and Torahverses are sacred. In his responsum, RavMoshe simply quotes the Rambam inMishneh Torah where he prohibits theinsertion of God’s names into amezuzah not because he didn’t believein their power but because doing sowould reduce the mezuzah to anamulet and diminish its true impor-tance as a Divine command. Rambamlikewise states there that although usingTorah verses or Divine names to heal isprohibited, using them for protection is

permissible. Hence, Rav Moshe was notignorant of Rambam’s philosophicalopinions.

Even Shisiya will encourage peopleto study matters of faith and theologyand to delve into them in the samemanner that they probe other Torahsubjects. As with all Torah study, thestudy of such subjects will be for thepurpose of lilmod al menat la’asot(encouraging observance and commit-ment to Torah), thus glorifying andmagnifying the Torah. I recommendEven Shisiya to Torah students who canappreciate it; a translation in English issoon to be released, which will make itaccessible to the wider public.

As for The Limits of OrthodoxTheology, I cannot recommend it to thegeneral public, who can be easily misledby some of the questionable theses inthis book. For the discerning readerwho will carefully check the sources,this book will provide an interesting his-torical perspective as to the variousopinions surrounding the ThirteenPrinciples. �JA

SumFnl07 6/13/07 11:09 AM Page 79