What do you think of Shalom Tzadik’s interpretation of your positions (from his interview with Rabbi Avraham Stav in the original)?
Prof. Tzadik’s message is indeed different from the accepted Torah or academic literature, but it fits in with other movements that have been taking place in Israel in recent decades. One of the most prominent figures who challenges the accepted religious conventions is Rabbi Dr. Michael Avraham, who calls for the adoption of a “lean theology” and questions the validity of some of the foundations of faith. Despite the similarities between them, and despite the criticism that both receive from the conservative wing, Prof. Tzadik claims that there are also fundamental differences:
“Our starting point is similar, in that we both build the world of faith on philosophical foundations. But in our conclusions, there are some fundamental differences. Rabbi Michael Avraham proves with philosophical tools the existence of a revelation that imparts certain information that humans would not have reached with their intellect. I do not believe in supernatural revelation of any kind. On the other hand, Rabbi Michael Avraham fundamentally embraces the liberal moral values of Western society and tries to reconcile them with the revelation in the Torah. In this he is similar to the liberal religious movements. I, on the other hand, believe in the moral values held by Aristotle and Maimonides, and not in progressive and liberal morality. In this sense, I am much closer to the American conservative movements that criticize progressive morality. But I am unable to join them because I abhor the capitalist approach they promote. I believe that the basic function of society is to take money from the rich and transfer it to the poor, with the help of an aggressive welfare state.”
I don’t know where he got the idea that I embrace progressive morality. I abhor it. I do believe in liberal morality.
I am also not trying to reconcile liberal values with revelation. In my opinion, there is no connection at all between the two, and precisely because of that, there is no reason to hold both.
I don't see any similarity in the method. Even the certain similarity in some of the conclusions - separating the observance of halakha from belief in some of the principles such as the full authenticity of the Torah, the resurrection of the dead, and the expectation of the Messiah - is a misleading similarity, because a righteous person arrives at them from a rigid rationalist position that negates everything "supernatural", and along with pouring these beliefs down the drain, he also pours all prophecy and the entire Torah (and also the Almighty). It's about like the similarity between two people who think that walking without a mask should not be forced during the Corona period, one claiming that the effectiveness of the mask has not been proven enough to justify coercion, and one claiming that there are no viruses in the world at all and Corona is the name of a beer.
It's funny that he falls into the desired-present fallacy. The fact that there was a group of commentators on the Rambam in the Middle Ages who understood the Rambam's position as someone who did not believe in revelation does not make their position desirable. That should be done by halakhic common sense, not the historical question of whether there were people who believed that way.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
