Marc Shapiro is one of the most popular and controversial writers in the Modern Orthodox world today, most famous perhaps for publicizing little-known – and often radical – positions in Jewish law and thought.
A professor at Scranton University, Shapiro has just published his fifth book, “Changing the Immutable: How Orthodox Judaism Rewrites Its History” (Littman Library). His first two works – “Between the Yeshiva World and Modern Orthodoxy” and “The Limits of Orthodox Theology” – were National Jewish Book Award finalists.
The Jewish Press: In the preface to Changing the Immutable, you quote Yugoslavian writer Milovan Djilas who said, “The hardest thing about being a communist is trying to predict the past.” What’s the relevance of this quote to your book?
Shapiro: Communist society kept rewriting the history books so you never knew what was going to happen. One day this person was an honored communist figure and the next year he was discredited.
Likewise, Orthodox society is constantly rewriting the past. A rabbi can be regarded as an honored figure today, but 10 years later he isn’t. An idea might be acceptable today, but 10 years later it might not be.
Your book is filled with examples of historical revisionism and omission. Let’s go through a number of them. First: Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach’s position on lashon hara between a husband and wife.
He thought if someone is having a bad day and has to get something off his chest, he can mention a certain individual to his wife. Under normal circumstances, that would be lashon hara, but he thought among spouses it is permissible because they’re like one person.
This p’sak, though, was removed in a later edition of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach’s work because it’s not in accordance with the Chofetz Chaim’s position.
The Vilna Gaon’s comments on Greek philosophy.
The Vilna Gaon states that the Rambam was led astray by “accursed philosophy.” But the people who published the Vilna Shulchan Aruch – the Romm publishers – were enlightened Jews and they were troubled by the phrase “accursed.” So they removed it. And until the recent Machon Yerushalayim printing, that’s the way it appeared in standard editions of the Shulchan Aruch.
Rav Yosef Karo’s view of kapparos.
He calls it a “minhag shtut.” That was removed for obvious reasons – because it was thought to be offensive to those who practice the custom. It appears in the first edition of the Shulchan Aruch, but it’s not in the Vilna edition or any of the other standard editions.
The Chasam Sofer’s position on the beginning and end of Shabbos.
There was a practice in Europe that Shabbos began after sunset, in accordance with Rabbeinu Tam’s position. This is an old practice that has pretty much fallen out of favor, but for much of Jewish history Shabbos started after sunset.
What I quote in the book is a protest [letter] that criticized Jews in Williamsburg who still were observing this custom. [The main point of that letter, though, concerned] the end of Shabbos. When Rav Moshe Stern published a volume of the teshuvot of the Chasam Sofer, it was censored because the Chasam Sofer doesn’t rule like Rabbeinu Tam. The Satmar Rav didn’t want that to be known.
The Kitzur Shulchan Aruch’s comments about non-observant Jews.
In the original text, he says that you don’t mourn for irreligious Jews, and you don’t really have anything to do with them. They’re wicked people, and we should rejoice when the wicked die. But if you look in later editions of this work, those comments are completely removed.
The Rema’s teshuvah on yayin nesech.
