Early feedback received from readers of Judaism Reclaimed indicates that one particular chapter seems to have caught people’s imagination: our critique of the arguments presented by Prof Marc Shapiro in the first section of his influential and thought-provoking book The Limits of Orthodox Theology.to mark this week’s parashah, which features one of Shapiro’s important claims – based on Rashi’s interpretation of the term “God’s hand” as “Yad Mamash” (lit. “real hand”).
At first glance, Shapiro appears to have amassed an impressive array of religious and historical sources which point towards belief in a physical God. Our chapter seeks to place these sources under the microscope to determine whether they stand up to sustained scrutiny. What shows up first are sources (such as Rabbi Moshe Cordovero and Josephus) of which Shapiro has quoted a single line from a much larger chapter. Examination of the chapter in its entirety, however, reveals that the source is actually stating, sometimes in very strong terms, the opposite of what Shapiro would have us believe.
Our critique also highlights significant omissions questioning, for example, whether it is accurate to declare Rashi a ‘corporealist’ on the basis of a single statement of “Yad Mamash” in this week’s parashah, when other explicit statements of Rashi - to which Shapiro makes no reference – explicitly contradict this conclusion. We note how leading academic opinions are not given a voice when they dispute Shapiro’s interpretations (even if these same academics are approvingly feted elsewhere in his book).
Much of Shapiro’s chapter focuses on literal readings of aggadic or kabbalistic sources which, he claims, are “very difficult to understand metaphorically”. Little effort, however, is expended on providing any form of context from the almost unanimous tradition that much aggadic material is intended to be understood metaphorically. Similarly, Shapiro does not cite the conclusions of leading scholars from both the academic and religious worlds who unite in their insistence that, to quote Professor Gerschom Scholem “limbs of the human body [mentioned in mystical sources]…are nothing but images of a certain spiritual mode of existence…the Divine Being Himself cannot be expressed. All that can be expressed are His symbols”. By including even such brief explanations of mystical terminology and concepts, Shapiro could have afforded his readers a better opportunity to assess the credibility of his claims regarding the corporeal implications of Kabbalah. It is argued that Shapiro’s failure to engage the basic structures of these systems results in him drawing superficial and at times misleading conclusions from their words.
The debate surrounding Divine corporeality within Jewish tradition requires great nuance, scholarship and even-handedness in order to determine accurately the meaning of texts which are regarded, by religious and academic scholarship alike, to contain esoteric or hidden meanings. It is my contention that the relevant chapters of The Limits of Orthodox Theology fall well short in each of these categories.
Note: The related debate in Hilchot Teshuvah between Rambam and Ra’avad over the implications of belief in a physical deity is examined in the preceding chapter of Judaism Reclaimed.
First posted on Facebook 1 February 2020, here.
