Q&A: Rabbi Amit Kula
Rabbi Amit Kula
Question
I heard in "Aflatonut" a brief remark of yours that you cannot give up some kind of interaction at the revelation at Mount Sinai, and it seemed to me that the Rabbi also added the miracles of the Exodus from Egypt, in contrast to Rabbi Kula’s view, who is willing to deny any interaction and still preserve Torah and the commandments.
And my question is: what is the relationship between the statement that this is a view that pulls the rug out from under everything and leaves no reason to believe, and what the Rabbi said in "Dogmatika," that there is no such thing as the Thirteen Principles and that people were never excluded from the fold because of their beliefs, but only when they violated Jewish law, etc. etc.?
Should we reject Rabbi Kula’s view more forcefully, or explain why in our opinion he is mistaken but still leave him within the fold with understanding and tolerance? Is there בכלל any boundary such that if someone crosses it, we oppose his view more than that of someone who denies more minor matters?
Is there a column that deals with Rabbi Kula’s view?
Thanks in advance, and I’m excited for the 700th column birthday.
Answer
I did not say that there are no principles. What I said is that it is impossible to demand belief in facts by virtue of authority. What does that have to do with the question of whether these or those facts are true, and with the question of whether they are a necessary basis for the service of God? Without believing in the Holy One, blessed be He, it is impossible to serve God, even though that belief is a factual claim. I wrote my arguments against Rabbi Kula’s book in my review of it, which is found here on the site: https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%A1%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%A1%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%95%D7%95%D7%99%D7%94-%D7%90%D7%95-%D7%97%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%AA%D7%99-%D7%97%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%9D-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%92%D7%99%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%99-%D7%95%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%99-%D7%91/
I do not deal with the question of who is inside the fold and who is outside it. It does not really interest me, and I am also not appointed to police definitions and boundaries.