Some of my other ideas of this type have been called balebatish (oh, no!), but anyway…

There is only so much one can put intelligibly into a concise prayer-poem with rhyme and meter such as Yigdal. I don’t think the cited omission implies any tolerance for worship to other than HaShem. This could also explain any other perceived deviations of the poetic, highly abridged Yigdal from Rambam’s long formulation.

Care to back up that assertion? Assuming that “authentic” means “accurate,” the exchange between Rav Leff and Dr. Shapiro would very much seem to support the conclusion that academics have a more accurate understanding of Judaism than Rashei Yeshiva.

I responded to this, but the comment did not go through. I see now that he does not state this specifically. But how then do you understand that he considers violations of ikarim to be violations of belief in torah and neviim?

This comment ended, “It would almost seem as if Rashei Yeshiva are not to be criticized, even on scholarly matters, while academics are fair game.”

On the whole, Rashei Yeshiva have had a more authentic understanding of Judaism than academics, so hashkafic statements by the former are normally considered to be more authoritative, even when these might appear to be bold or innovative. Many academics look at traditional Judaism as an outsider would.

The only Ikarrim which actually appear in the Torah are the existence of G-d, without any specifics, and that He gave the immutable Torah to Moshe.
The acceptance of the Torah as a binding document is an Ikar in the sense that without it one is simply not playing the game, so its not relevant to discuss his beliefs.
Does any other Ikar have a clear source in the Torah?

I might not have made it clear in the previous comment, but I support and believe in the Rambam’s ikkarim. It is also obvious from the review that Rabbi Blau was taking issue with the latitude which Dr. Shapiro allowed.

I just observed an independent point(Rabbi Blau wasn’t making it in the precise way I did, thus I “extrapolated” it) that a loose usage of “heresy” in reference to an issue such as Zionism, may very well generate more interest in Dr. Shapiro’s position to some extent or another.

Similarly, if an idea was acceptable as recently as in the era of Rav Hirsch, but in today’s generation is said to be beyond the pale, then one has effectively given more flux and instability to principles of faith–kol hamoseif goreia. You can disagree with this concern, but I’m simply mentioning it as a possibility.

Bob,

I agree with your comment.

It’s not subvisual in the meforshim on Rambam. See here for some of the references:
http://www.zootorah.com/controversy/LetterToJO.pdf

With reference to the main point: I do not believe that it is accurate say with reference to some of the ikkarim that only “isolated voices” opposed them. Certainly this does not hold true for ikkarim 5 and 8.

What particularly disturbed me about Rabbi Leff’s review, aside from some of his (in my view) carping and at times inaccurate criticisms of some of Dr. Shapiro’s specific points, is the following. Rabbi Leff’s review was a review of two books: Dr. Shapiro’s and a book based on the lectures of Rav Shmuel Yaakov Weinberg, zt”l, on the 13 ikkarim. Rabbi Leff, however, did not challenge any of Rav Yaakov’s highly innovative and, in my view, questionable or at the very least debatable theses, while ripping into Dr. Shapiro’s views. It would almost seem as if Rashei Yeshiva are not to be criticized, even on scholarly matters, while academics are fair game.

The Yigdal is actually a very good summary of the Rambam’s 13 ikkarim. Its author had a good grasp of the Rambam’s philosophy. The Ani Ma’amins have many contradictions to the Rambam’s actual ikkarim. R. Chaim Hirschenson has a fairly extensive analysis of this in one of his teshuvos and others have written about this also.

Your opinions on this matter have not caused me to budge one bit. I will not be baited into another drawn-out debate in which I have to spend even more time pointing out exactly what I find objectionable in your arguments and presentations. I am merely reaffirming my previous statement: “Regarding the question that this obviously raises, I think the record shows that R. Natan Slifkin’s views have ample support within the Jewish tradition and are not wrong.”

I’m somewhat surprised you seem to have ignored Esther’s comment to you (comment 14) and her request for an explanation as to why the “beyond the pale” label only gets applied to the left and not the right, when halacha says that veering in either direction is incorrect. Have you an answer? Yehoshua was commanded “Lo Sasur YAMIN o Smol,” and Yamin, to the right, is mentioned first, implying it’s even more wrong to be noteh to the right than to the left. Further, the Torah itself tells us not lean either way. Why is this ignored in the Chareidi world? Why are people to the left the ONLY ones considered doing the wrong thing, but not the ones to the right?

More emphasis needs to be placed on arming all Jews at all ages with a detailed understanding of the world and our role and duties in it according to our Mesorah, and a burning desire to do HaShem’s will. No external defense measures can possibly insulate an ignorant, unmotivated Jew from all possible temptations and false notions. Any defensive strategy that dulls a Jew’s ability to think also makes him more vulnerable, especially to unanticipated dangers.

It is also foolish to try to be a hero by opening oneself up to more known or unknown dangers than one can handle.

I take this to mean that he agrees to the idea that even if a belief has sources in minority opinions and is not heresy, it can still be wrong-even dangerously wrong.
That is why he too, opposes Dr. Shapiro’s work.

But then he says the following:

Regarding the question that this obviously raises, I think the record shows that R. Natan Slifkin’s views have ample support within the Jewish tradition and are not wrong.
Comment by Gil Student —

If he is refering to the non-literal understanding of Bereishis, I don’t see how R. Natan Slifkin’s views are any less wrong than Dr. Shapiro’s.
Having support from the Ralbag, and hotly disputed support from a sub-visual view of the Rambam (meaning, you can’t find it anywhere in the Moreh and you can find many explicit statements that are against it) is not ample enough to save this view from being wrong. Dangerously wrong.

If Gil Student was not intending to defend R. Slifkin’s view of the non-literal understanding of Bereishis, then why doesn’t he (and R’ Adlerstein as well,) acknowledge that severe criticism of R. Slifkin’s view of Bereishis as dangerously wrong is fully warranted?

Rabbi Berel Wein discusses in the appendix to his work on Medieval Jewish history how fleshing out ikkarie emunah had historical causes and background to it. Interest in Dr. Shapiro’s work came in the context of discussion in the Torah Umaddah Journal about acceptable intellectual inquiry, and the current eruptions of Science/Torah disputes added relevance to what are basic Torah beliefs; I believe that there will be a more comprehensive response from the Torah world regarding these issues, just as there was in medieval times when confronting foreign ideas.

A separate point to consider is the comparison and contrast of today’s era with 19th century Volozhin. In what way is Orthodox world, and Charedi world in particular, better or worse off? Should responses be inner- focused such as Mussar Movement was to Haskalah, or should we build higher and thicker external fences, as in fencing out the internet, or should there be people directly engaging foreign ideas, as was indeed done by some European gedolim? Even if we would not directly engage every foreign idea and instead focus inward, perhaps public discussion and debate will at least need to be more nuanced and be less complacent, if we are sensitive to the historical comparisons.

I am concerned, like others, that this will be used to de-legitimize and brand as beyond the pale Science/Torah ideas which were previously acceptable in parts of the yeshivah world.

“We use the term “heretic” too loosely; in that regard, we would be well served to take some of Dr Shapiro’s points to heart”

This may be the idea of “kol hamoseif gorea”, that adding is subtracting.

In the TuM review , R. Yitzchak Blau concludes from the fact that certain sharp statements were used to describe some gedolim’s ideas as “heresy”, that misuse of the term “heresy” may have gotten out of hand, and he accordingly sees Dr. Shapiro’s book as a resource against “increasing dogmatism”. While I have no wish to get involved in machalokes(dispute) among gedolim, I extrapolated from this point one of my own(unrelated to R. Blau’s review), that expanding the Limit of Torah Theology on the Right, may make less-sacred boundaries on the Left as well. Kol hamoseif gorea may therefore at least be a concern when considering rejecting Science/Torah positions which were previously deemed acceptable, in that it makes less sacred the boundaries on the Left.