Shalom Tzadik’s article and the resignation of Rabbi Shmuel Ariel from Yeshiva Otniel

Can I upload the article here?
(Not a link to Facebook, because it's blocked for me)

I went through Shalom Tzadik's article and your correspondence with him, and I was surprised by your words here that ’I find no great innovation in it, nor any particular problem’.
Unlike you, Tzadik goes much, much further, and it follows from his words that he can agree with the view that the Torah and the demand to observe it do not come from an external and transcendental source, but from within man.

Here are his quotes:
“Rambam”thought that religion was necessary for the existence and perfection of society, and therefore he continued to “play” the interpretive game of the Holy Scriptures”…
”Either there is a supernatural personal entity that somehow watches over the world, or not… If there is no such entity, the question ceases to be metaphysical and becomes political. The question is: Is it worth it, for social reasons, to continue playing the interpretive game (Rambam's position), or is it worth breaking the rules and killing the God of the Bible in order to eliminate the social influence of the religious establishment (Spinoza's position)?
“If a person comes to you and says that in his opinion there is no providence, no prophecy, no God, or no special power for the people of Israel, do not tell him that he is an infidel”…
“Can the revelation at Sinai be interpreted as a parable for the achievement of Moses our Lord”…

And you write that ”there is a “very thin” general framework of general philosophical principles, which are true for all beings in the world, but not believing in them does take you outside the framework of faith (otherwise faith has no meaning at all). Belief in a transcendent God who created the world, revealed himself at Sinai, gave commandments and they bind us. That’s about it”.

I see a huge distance between his words and yours. I don’t understand how you don’t find his words problematic.

I understand. I wrote about this that I do not agree with the view of the commandments as a social instrument and the value that is in a servant of God without faith. But there is no special intellectual thesis here. Many have already written and said this (like Ahad Ha'am), and indeed I do not agree with all of them. As I think he himself claimed that this is just a pedagogical approach to give it legitimacy in order to save people and not that he himself believes so. I do not agree with this either, but here it is already a really widespread approach. I think that most of the religious and ultra-Orthodox public thinks this way (don't wake up and don't wake up).

A’ sent me the article and asked what I thought. (According to him, the article caused a stir in the Otniel Yeshiva)
I read the article and was unable to get to the bottom of the author's thoughts.
I would love to hear your opinion.

I read it. By chance, about two days before the storm was published, I corresponded with the guy on another subject and he sent me his article.
His fundamental argument, in my opinion, mixes the tactical with the substantive. He recommends flexibility of thought on the tactical level in order to prevent abandonment, which of course is true in my opinion as well, but ignores the question of what the truth is. If you allow a Catholic Christian to be considered a Jew, then you will certainly gain a lot of Jews and prevent abandonment. In fact, you can be whatever you want and still be considered within the religious camp. In my opinion, this article is a bit confused and not really important, and the storm surrounding it is the business of the Othniel Yeshiva. I do not see it as a public matter. There is no interesting argument here that is worth discussing, perhaps with the exception of the argument that avoiding philosophy due to fear of heresy is problematic. But this too is not for the tactical reasons he listed but for the reasons of truth (that a person should think and do what he thinks).