Q&A: What do you think of Shalom Tzadik’s interpretation of your positions (from his interview with Rabbi Abraham Stav in Makor Rishon)
What do you think of Shalom Tzadik’s interpretation of your positions (from his interview with Rabbi Abraham Stav in Makor Rishon)
Question
The message of Prof. Tzadik is indeed different from the usual rabbinic or academic literature, but it fits into other trends that have been taking place in Israel in recent decades. One of the prominent figures challenging the accepted conventions of faith is Rabbi Dr. Michael Abraham, who calls for adopting a “thin theology” and questions the validity of some of the foundations of faith. Despite the similarity between them, and despite the criticism both receive from the conservative camp, Prof. Tzadik argues that there are also substantive differences:
“Our point of departure is similar, in that both of us build the world of faith on philosophical foundations. But in the conclusions there are several fundamental differences between us. Rabbi Michael Abraham proves through philosophical tools the existence of a revelation that conveys certain information that human beings could not have reached by their own reason. I do not believe in supernatural revelation of any kind. On the other hand, Rabbi Michael Abraham basically adopts the liberal moral values of Western society and tries to reconcile them with the revelation in the Torah. In that respect he resembles the liberal religious streams. By contrast, I believe in the moral values held by Aristotle and Maimonides, and not in progressive and liberal morality. In that sense I am much closer to the American conservative movements that criticize progressive morality. But I cannot join them because I recoil from the capitalist approach they promote. I believe that the basic role of a society is to take money from the rich and transfer it to the poor, through an aggressive welfare state.”
Answer
I don’t know where he got the idea that I adopt progressive morality. I recoil from it. I do believe in liberal morality.
I also am not trying to reconcile liberal values with revelation. In my view there is no connection at all between those two things, and precisely because of that there is no obstacle to holding both.
Discussion on Answer
It’s funny that he falls into the is-ought fallacy. The fact that there was a group of commentators on Maimonides in the Middle Ages who understood Maimonides’ position as someone who did not believe in revelation does not make their position desirable. That has to be determined by straightforward halakhic common sense, not by the historical question of whether there were such people who held that view.
I don’t see any similarity in method at all. Even the certain similarity in some of the conclusions—the separation between observance of Jewish law and belief in some of the principles, such as the full authenticity of the Torah, resurrection of the dead, and awaiting the messiah—is a misleading similarity, because Tzadik arrives at them from a hardline rationalist position that rejects anything “supernatural,” and along with pouring those beliefs down the drain he also pours out all prophecy and the entire Torah (and also the Holy One, blessed be He). It’s roughly like the similarity between two people who think one should not force mask-wearing during the coronavirus period: one argues that the effectiveness of masks has not been sufficiently proven to justify coercion, and the other argues that there are no viruses in the world at all and Corona is just the name of a beer.