[Avodah] Lying to protect the simple of faith

[Micha Berger]

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 02:03:45AM -0400, Michael Makovi wrote:
: I've been having a debate on the Zohar at
: http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2313958934&topic=4034&start=0&hash=a8312a32e51a84740189bd00fe73a8c2,
: and at one point, I brought up ibn Ezra saying that there could be
: post-Moshe pesukim, and Dr. Marc Shapiro of course came up. I made the
: following post, from which, for Avodah, I would like to discuss my
: second point regarding a Torah authority lying to protect the simple
: of faith (but I'll post my entire post).

Lying it the wrong term. First, it has problems on a kavod harav level.
But in terms of content:

The Rambam defines the entire purpose of man in terms of knowing the
truth. He has no room for a concept of lying for the greater good.
OTOH, he does believe that the masses are incapable of comprehending the
full truth, and that there is an oversimplified version that is the
best they can do. In the Rambam's worldview, this is the difference
between the exoteric and esoteric.

However, the 13 ikkarim define the minimum belief. Definitionally,
they are the points even those of "small souls" can not accept in a
simplified form. IOW, if the Rambam made it an ikkar, it's an essential
truth, not a "good enough" approximation for the less bright masses.

: I had previously there brought up an article by Dr. Shapiro that
: mentions this opinion of ibn Ezra, but then...

It is not so clear the IE believed in multiple authorship of the Torah. He
refers a number of times to the "secret of the 12", each time at a point
where the Torah refers to something from a perspective later than the
settling of Israel. E.g. "and the Kenaani was then in the land". The
Tzofnas Paneiach assumes this refers to later additions to the Torah.

It should be pointed out, though, that there are Chassidim who agree
that the TzP is saying the IE believed in real multiple authorship --
but they therefore don't learn IE. IOW, the belief that there were no
inserted verses, even contextual ones within a naarative, with no nafqa
mina elmaaseh, was (until this generation's LW) held stronger than the
belief that the IE is on the list of "real rishonim".

Second, the Ibn Ezra's unstated "secret of the 12" is more subtle than
multiple authorship. On the list of Edmite kings (Bereishis 36:31), he
condemns a Rav Yitzchaq ibn Yashush or "Hay?sh?sh" (I never figured out
the vowels) for saying that since the list of kings goes beyond Moses'
day, and even says "before there was a king in Israel" it must have been
a later addition. So, even according to the Tzofnas Paneiach's take as to
what the secret is, one can't simply call it multiple authorship. That
would sound like the IE was okay with ideas he not only rejects but
condemns.

Note therefore that the problem isn't changes in language, nor
anachronisms, but a specific problem with tense.

Also, the Tzofnas Paneiach seems to assume that the 12 in question are
the 12 last verses of Deuteronomy. The Talmud records a debate as to
whether Moses wrote the tail end of Deut that describe his own death and
mourning, or Joshua did. The talmud discusses 8 such verses. Thus there
is very little in "the secret of the 12" linking it to later authorship,
and it could well be a grammatical rule about when past tense was used
in the Torah. For example, the book was written to match the tense of
the majority of its readers, not necessarily to match proper tense at
the time of dictation.

The IE discusses his position at greatest length at Deut 1:2. Also of
value is Shadal's (Shemuel David Luzzato's) rebuttal of Spinoza's attempt
to cram this idea into the Ibn Ezra's words.

: Just this past Yom Tov Pesach, I saw Marc Shapiro's book The Limits of
: Orthodox Theology, and I saw that it truly is a magnificent sefer -
: basically, he collects classical Torah opinions that controvert
: Rambam's 13.

It is a history. Academic study of a topic is a different modality than
talmud Torah. The question of what was believed doesn't necessarily
determine what should be believed today.

...
: 1) When Rambam says the Torah we have is the same as given by Moshe,
: Rambam cannot possibly believe that this is literally true, for Rambam
: was extensively involved in textual study of different texts, and even
: advocated certain Masoretic texts (ben Asher I believe) over
: others....

IOW, denying "Higher Criticism" doesn't mean denying "Lower Criticism" or
R' Meir's statement that we lost the true list of chaseiros and yeseiros.

: 1a) Rather, then, Rambam is saying that no deliberate additions were
: made after Moshe...

Or even semantic accidental changes. Cheseiros and yeseiros, or variations
in the spelling of "petzua daka", may change the kashrus of a seifer,
but unless you have a beis din ready to derashin a din from that pasuq,
they won't make a stitch of difference.

: For ibn Ezra, as interpreted by a large list of authorities, held that
: many verses are post-Moshe...

Conjecture taken as fact. One I will not accept until you can distinguish
the position you're attributing to the IE from the one he condemns in
Bereishis 36:13. And then, I would at most be compelled to drop those
portions of IE from my study list.

Another problem with academia; bigger claims get more attention, and more
future funding. There is a pressure, therefore in favor of theories that
"debunk" accepted wisdom.

...
: 2) As an alternative to point 1 above: Rambam knew that there were
: textual variants in our Torah scrolls, but he very well have lied
: about this, and said that there were no variants, and that we today
: have the exact same scroll as given by Moshe. In fact, in his Iggeret
: Teiman, Rambam makes exactly such an explicit lie....

What a wild claim to throw in without substantiating?

As above, though, I believe the Rambam was referring to the absence of
anything that would have any semantic content.

BTW, the gemara speaks of whether Yehoshua wrote the last 12 pesuqim
in Sinai. Despite the Rambam's phrasing that the whole Torah had to be
relayed via Moshe Rabbeinu, most of us discuss "Torah miSinai", which is
preserved according to both tannaim. Even without Moshe telling Yehoshua
what to later write, or spelling it out in tears for him to later trace
in ink.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 14th day, which is
micha at aishdas.org        2 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Gevurah: How does judgment reveal
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            G-d?