Ratio’s response to your trilogy

Is the trilogy such a tragedy??
How do you deal with a thin Judaism? And with proposals for changes in Halacha?
I must point out that I have not read the new books by Rabbi Dr. Michai Avraham, but I have difficulty understanding the polemics surrounding or against them.
Any debate about the tenets of faith, that is, about “what we must believe,” is circular.
why?
If a person denies the essence of faith, then the parties are clear: I believe in the resurrection of the dead, he does not believe, and the judgment is as explained in the Shulchan Aruch, etc.
If a person claims that one does not have to believe in something (and does not believe in it), then according to his theory there is no problem with his disbelief. Only according to the theory of those who believe that one must believe, there is a problem with his belief. But they admit that the problem is only with their theory. They claim that they are right, but he claims that he is right. A problem.
Then Mikhi comes along and claims that it is possible to dilute some of what is considered by the majority to be tenets of faith, and one does not have to believe in it.
Those who argue against him, since they must believe, rely on sources that they believe are forbidden to deny. But in Michi’s opinion, it is permissible to deny them. So the argument against him is circular.
In short, when arguing about the source of authority, there is no common denominator, and therefore there is no debate.
You can argue about what someone says, if you recognize them as a source of authority. If you don’t recognize them as a source of authority, there’s no way to argue. If you recognize A as a source of authority because of B, but the other person doesn’t recognize B either. Then there’s no conflict.
In my personal opinion, the question of what one must believe is a halakhic question. Because unlike questions of interpretation, outlook, and understanding of Torah ideas, which are not halakhic, one who disbelieves in the principles of faith has halakhic status (as explained in the Shulchan
Although it is possible to argue in Halacha, every veteran student is allowed to offer his opinion in Halacha. Even Rabbi Michai Avraham, as a person who has taught Torah to many for many years, can offer his opinion in Halacha.
Obviously, most rabbis will disagree with the rulings on matters of lean Judaism.
But, the goal of this thin Judaism is to allow people who are unable or unwilling to believe in ‘fat’ Judaism to remain people of faith.
So what do we care about that?
Most believers are not bothered by some statement that they don’t have to believe in something. The fact that they don’t have to doesn’t mean that it’s not true. If there is a debate between Maimonides and the Rabbis about whether someone who believes in ghosts is an Epicurus, this doesn’t mean, of course, that we should believe in ghosts, because according to the Rabbis, there is a ‘thin Judaism’ here. And so with all the other thin ones, let’s assume that we don’t ‘have to’ believe in providence at the AAA level, and those who don’t believe will not be killed. Does this mean that there is no providence or that there is no point in believing? Those who think that they don’t have to, will vouch for it.
Even Miki himself does not follow the path of Leibowitz, for whom any discussion of anything related to spirituality aroused disgust and contempt and was considered idolatry, and beyond God, a Pinochetist and settler hater, he was not willing to accept any other option.
Miki says he doesn’t believe it, because he sees no reason to believe it. He doesn’t even claim that all the ‘fat’ must not exist, he just doesn’t feel the need to believe that it must exist. So I say – good luck to him.
The same thing about changes in halacha, wants to propose, let him propose. I don’t know if he intends to rule or propose. The majority probably doesn’t agree. So what’s the point of someone proposing something and it remains a minority opinion.
Because the debate in this area, as mentioned, is circular. A debate about the source of authority. So there is no conflict.
If someone were to claim changes in halacha, and anchor it in the Mt. and Chzota, there would be something to debate.
If someone were to claim a lean Judaism, and anchor it in the Sages, there would be a mess.
But if one admits that according to accepted halachic Judaism, there is no place for any part of the trilogy, then we have no choice but to agree.
And if the halachic authorities are somehow convinced by his rulings, everyone will be satisfied. For now, that is not the direction.

Continued from the comments

What is there to discuss about his words? He does not accept tradition (he does not claim that ‘there is no tradition’ but claims that the words of the Sages and others do not have the authority of tradition), and that is the issue itself. From the perspective of most sages, tradition, the Sages, the Rishonim do have authority, and their words are also binding. This is the reason why we accept their words and not because we have proof that they are “true”. Anyone who does not want to accept their words, and does not want to accept their words that say there is an obligation – that is their problem.

Discussion is only possible with a common premise. Someone accepts the sages or the Rishonim but claims they intended otherwise. It is possible to argue with him. If he does not accept the source of authority that I believe in, how can I force him to accept it?