On Changing the Immutable by Marc B. Shapiro,The History and Dating

וְהָאֱמֶת וְהַשָּׁלוֹם On Changing the ;אֱהָבוּ Immutable by Marc B. Shapiro On Changing the Immutable by ;וְהָאֱמֶת וְהַשָּׁלוֹם אֱהָבוּ Marc B. Shapiro By Yitzchok Stroh Professor Marc Shapiro’s latest work, Changing the Immutable, contains considerable interesting and pertinent information for the student of Jewish history. As stated on the cover, the author attempts to reveal how the (Jewish) orthodox ‘establishment’ silences both past and present dissenting voices through “Orthodox Judaism Rewriting Its History.” I don’t intend this to be a review of the entire work (that would take a lot more time and space), however I did want to share some of my frustration here, because I sense that the author’s bias affected his objectivity, and I am afraid that many a reader will be left with an impression that in many ways does not reflect the reality of this complex topic. In this article, I would like to examine one passage of Shapiro’s work to illustrate this point. In chapter eight, entitled, “Is the truth really that important?” Shapiro writes: Because my purpose in this chapter is to chart the outer limits of what has been viewed as acceptable when it comes to falsehood and deception. I will be focusing on the more ‘liberal’ positions. My aim is to show just how far some rabbinic decisors were willing to go in sanctioning deviations from the truth. One must bear in mind, however, that there are often views in opposition to the ones I shall be examining. Perhaps this knowledge can serve as a counterweight to the shock that many readers will experience upon learning of some of the positions I will mention. One ‘liberal’ position was expressed by R. Moses Isserles, who went so far as to say that one can even slander someone for the sake of preserving the community. The particular case he was discussing concerned a terrible community dispute that had created the possibility that the Jewish population would be expelled from the city. In what many will find a problematic decision, Isserles offered the opinion, which was then put into action, that it was acceptable to provide false information about an individual whom the government suspected of wrongdoing, if this would alleviate the situation. Although the Talmud states, with regard to giving a man up for execution in response to a demand made by non-Jews, that this is not the way of the pious, Isserles defended his approach: “Even if we did not act in accord with the way of the pious, nevertheless, we acted in accord with the law. I have proven that it is permitted to speak leshon hara [slander] in order to preserve peace.”[1] the primary codifier of ,רמ”א Here, Shapiro portrays the halacha for Ashkenazic Jewry, to have ruled that for the sake of preserving the peace, it is acceptable to provide false information to non-Jewish authorities about a presumably innocent individual whom the government suspected of wrongdoing. Shocking indeed. of תשובה Unfortunately, Shapiro fails to present the thoroughly and accurately, and as a result, the רמ”א the reader is left with an erroneous understanding of the opinion Furthermore, Shapiro fails to present the .רמ”א of the relevant section of Talmud precisely, which may lead to further misunderstanding. I am not accusing Professor Shapiro הוי זהיר do teach us חז”ל of intentional distortion, but so, with this in mind, I would — בתלמוד ששגגת תלמוד עולה זדון like to offer a more careful presentation of the Rema’s position as a counterweight for those who’ve read this .רמ”א inaccurately presented) ‘shocking’ position of the) is written in complicated rabbinic שו”ת הרמ”א in סימן י”א style, and does not provide a full account of what transpired we ,תשובה writes in the introduction to the רמ”א but, as the — should be able to extract sufficient background information as necessary for our purposes[2]: (”a “writ of justification) [כתב התנצלות[is a 3 תשובה The in response רמ”א of the בית דין defending actions taken by the makes it quite clear in רמ”א to a local crisis, and as the his description of the events, the ensuing bitter results were unexpected and troubling: הנה בכל אלה לשלום נתכוונו בעצם וראשונה, אף כי במקרה מרה … היתה באחרונה, ואף מקצת עזי פנים היו בקרבנו ועכשיו מהפכים דברינו לתוהו ובהו. מיהו אנו לשם שמים נתכוונו, והכל נמשך Behold in“.אחר המחשבה והכוונה. אף כי אחריתו ראש ולענה this entire incident our intention was peace, first and foremost, even though by happenstance the end was bitter. There were also a few brazen individuals amongst us, who are now turning things into utter chaos. However, our intent was for the sake of Heaven, and ‘everything follows one’s thoughts and intentions’, even though the end was gall and wormwood.” While it is probably impossible to reconstruct a precise account of the incident, the following is obvious from the The government did not (תשובה: (details presented in the 1 suspect anyone of any type of wrongdoing[4]. (2) It was not an individual that was slandered; it was a group of about one hundred respectable community leaders or activists that were slandered. (3) False information was never provided to non- Jewish authorities, and those slandered were not slandered publicly — they were slandered in a private ruling by the which was then recorded in a written בית דין decision of a document. (4) Furthermore, the document was fashioned in a manner which made it evident that the ruling was an exaggeration and not an actual account, and (5) it was drafted only to be used as a means of forcing two opposing sides to reconcile a community quarrel. Unfortunately, (6) the document did become public knowledge and its intention was misconstrued by unscrupulous individuals.[5] And (7) there were dire consequences, probably due to involvement of the non-Jewish authorities, but we do not know what those consequences were. The actual events that led up to this action are described at length and can be summed up as follows: A group of pretentious rabbinic and lay leaders[6] convened to place a ban on a certain individual, causing him great harm[7]. (The reason for the ban is not clear.) This individual then sought to take revenge upon those who had placed the ban upon him[8] and was joined by others who sympathized with his cause,[9] ultimately splitting the entire community between his supporters and his enemies[10]. This caused a tremendous desecration of G-d’s name as the strife continued to escalate[11], which led to placing the entire community in danger of being expelled by the authorities[12]. and his colleagues attempted to intercede with the רמ”א The individual’s opponents, but were completely ignored[13], and the matter escalated to the point of death threats against the man upon whom the ban had been placed[14]. In an attempt to and his partners decided to write a רמ”א resolve matters, the fictitious halachic ruling[15], containing exaggerated and slanderous accusations against the individual’s opponents, with the goal being that the individual in question would then use this document to extort the ruling written against him from his enemies, whereby both the documents would be exchanged and destroyed. had a רמ”א Now, before you extrapolate from here that the flippant attitude towards honesty, please consider: and his colleagues were quite concerned about the רמ”א The (1) possibility that this individual might use the document inappropriately (i.e. reveal its contents to the authorities), and to prevent this, they had him swear a strict oath that he would not show the document to anyone else, and that he would only use it to get his opponents to hand over their document to him[16]. Anyone familiar with the חרם original severity of an oath in Jewish law, and the general fear of swearing falsely at that time, will understand why the outcome was quite a surprise to the rabbis who signed this slanderous had taken additional steps to רמ”א ,document. Furthermore insure that the document would be null and void if misused, אבל לא נחתם“ ,concludes in his justification רמ”א and as the it was not signed to…) ”להרע בו לשום אדם חלילה לנו מרשע inflict harm upon any person; G-d forbid that we should do evil). (2) Regardless of the fact that the slanderous ruling and the resulting document were extremely limited in nature and not meant to be seen by the public (and certainly not the was clearly still troubled by the רמ”א government), the elements of dishonesty. He makes it quite obvious that he felt that he had no choice, and that it was entirely out of concern for the safety of the community that made speaking and writing falsely and negatively about fellow Jews necessary in this is attempting to רמ”א case. It is this decision that the and as we will see, this was – כתב התנצלות justify in his hardly taken lightly. goes on to quote various sources to support his רמ”א The decision, and proceeds, in rabbinic style, to argue the point by analyzing a Talmudic ruling. Shapiro, when he discusses the Talmudic ruling tells only half the story. Shapiro writes, “The Talmud states, with regard to giving a man up for execution in response to a demand made by non-Jews, that this is not the way of the pious.” However, as we shall see, giving a man up for execution in response to a demand made by non- Jews has nothing to do with the pious — indeed, it is strictly rules תרומות forbidden according to the Talmud.

Load more