by Rabbi Yair Hoffman

Marc B. Shapiro

CHANGING THE IMMUTABLE

How Orthodox Judaism Rewrites Its History

347pp.

978 1 904133 60 7

US: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization

Published: 17 May 2015

Reprinted from the Five Towns Jewish Times

Marc Shapiro is a brilliant writer who became famous for his penetrating study of Rabbi Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg in his 1999 work, “Between the Yeshiva World and Modern Orthodoxy.” That work as well as his next book on alternative views in the Rishonim to the Rambam’s Thirteen Principles were both finalists in the National Jewish Book Award. Shapiro was also the last person to do his PhD under Rav Soloveitchik’s son-in-law, Professor Isadore Twersky of Harvard.

His latest book, however, about censorship in the Orthodox world, has precipitated a bit of a mixed reaction in this reviewer. On the one hand, Dr. Shapiro has uncovered remarkable tidbits of information that provides much deeper insight into many an author’s original intents, nuances and meanings. He also makes some very strong points about how far the censorship has gone in our community as well as the irrational justification for it. Left unchecked, this tendency can and does redefine what is viewed as “truth” and can leave us questioning the credibility of many a work. Clearly, our tendency toward over-censorship in many areas could use some re-assessment.

On the other hand, there is information revealed that had given this author a veritable kick in the stomach somewhat akin to the discovery that a well-respected Rabbi is not what he appears to be – a la many a recent headline. What do we make of a diary entry in an original manuscript of an auto-biography of one of the Gedolei haAcharonim that states horrifying information regarding one of his own contemporaries that heretofore had a sterling reputation? Do we disregard what is said? Or do we now regard the latter’s work in a new light? Perhaps we were better off not knowing, and since ignorance is bliss I would have preferred the original censorship of that manuscript.

A third element that Shapiro has included his work – simply does not belong, as it does not add a whit to his underlying thesis that our censorship has gone too far. The fact that the Venice printing of many classical works included inappropriate pictures on the title page does not add to the author’s thesis that we are over-censuring. The artwork was from a time and place that did not adhere to the social mores of other Jewish societies – both before the Venice type-setters and after. Shapiro’s remark that to his recollection no religious authority ever commented that it was inappropriate is because it is quite obvious that such art does not belong on a title page of a sefer. The subsequent artistic changes to the artwork are interesting, however, they do not back up Shapiro’s general thesis.

I would also liked to have seen Dr. Shapiro point out the censorship that had occurred in the reprinting of Irving Bunim’s commentary on Pirkei Avos. My original copy of Bunim’s Pirkei Avos commentary had numerous references to Shakespeare in it. The current version has had the Shakespearian references completely excised. Wouldn’t it be nice to see the comments of someone who had Yeshiva training and so much shimush of Gedolei Yisroel also inform us of the insights of Torah as it relates to Shakespeare? Now, no longer. the reader would have welcomed Shapiro’s cogent analysis of this.

Publishers take it upon themselves – even without asking family members – to censor and republish the way they see fit. We lose by this, and to this Shapiro makes an excellent argument.

The chapter on the censorship of Rav Kook’s haskamos from other works is informative and reflects a sad reality that we are redefining who and what our Gedolim are about. We forget that Rav Kook was Rav Elyashiv’s mesader kiddushin and that both he and Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach had the highest respect toward him. There is an unhealthy polarization that Shapiro warns us about in this chapter – a lesson we should heed.

Yet at the same time, Shapiro’s book has an undertone of some ax to grind with the right wing Torah community. While it is true that much of the censorship is, in fact, excessive, there is a plethora of material that simply should not have been included in the book because it does not back up his thesis.

There are times, of course, when censorship is just good editing or good business sense. Social mores do change over time and like it or not, the censorship to the general reader allows the reader to avoid seeing a warped or skewed work. As an example – Old English was once a living, vibrant, and spoken language. Reprinting a work in Old English can sometimes give the reader a warped view of the work precisely because the Old English no longer reflects the vibrant spoken language it once was. The change to modern idiom is thus not true censorship at all, but rather a form of upgrading. Shapiro’s inclusion of some of such material does not reflect this notion.

The chapter on censorship in halachic works should also have included a discussion of machshirei ochel nefesh, the groundwork to the preparayion of food, and the out and out permission to teach it when its laws do not apply imminently contrasted with the obligation to suppress information about machsirei ochel nefesh when it is actually relevant to the questioner. This whole concept would have informed the reader about the issue of censorship more fully. The various approaches and explanations of this halachic quirk would have been very welcomed.

And perhaps I am just needling the author here, but it also seems that Shapiro has done some of his own censorship too. In his analysis of various versions and translations of Eli Weisel’s “Night” Shapiro’s innocuous translation of Yiddish terms with a more pejorative connotation reflects some of the same supposed censorship that he is knocking.

In conclusion, this book, like Shapiro’s previous works, show the author’s remarkable industry and analytic depth, but it has included material and information, that although may be of great interest, does not shed further light on the author’s thesis. It also failed to include other relevant material that would have deeply informed the discussion. Notwithstanding these two criticisms, it is this author’s view that the book will prove to be very popular.

The reviewer can be reached at [email protected]