Excellent post! Really got me thinking and introduce me to some new ideas about the history of Judaism. Ultimately, I don’t see how rational Judaism can sustain itself because Judaism itself is built on irrational stories, which the rational Jew would have rejected in their time. And I’ve seen in the Christian world in the 19th century how some critics like Matthew Arnold tried to rescue Christianity through similar sorts of rational arguments, that worked for intellectuals, but not for most people, and the result is that Western culture is now largely secular and unbelieving in any sense of biblical truth.
This is directly inline with my thinking! Ive been searching for a long time to find someone that I can relate to in this area. Is there an English version
I wonder why Prof. Shalom Tsadik thinks a very small sliver of Jewish intellectual history (Greco- Arabian philosophical rationalism of Medieval Spain/Provence of only a few centuries) can serve as a counter-balance to everything that Judaism was for a millennia before it and many centuries after it. This stream was openly revisionist in nature and is obviously an outlier of Judaism. It sorely lacks authenticity since it shamelessly imported its entire approach from the Muslim theologian philosophers of the time.
Does he really believe this is a genuine form of Judaism--no Divine providence, no miracles only nature, no reward and punishment, no afterlife or resurrection and a static G-d who only created the laws of nature and nothing more and is indifferent to prayer?
Who is he fooling? I think he is trying to trick himself and others into thinking all this was really what Rambam believed-- when deep down we all know he didn't.
I’m not sure he thinks it needs to serve as a counter balance. More that this perspective can serve as an outlier option for those that cannot or will not believe in the supernatural
My point is that with this approach there is no here baby either once you aren't believing in the afterlife, reward and punishment, prayers being heard, or anything supernatural. It's not a legitimate option-- just like Reform Judaism isn't a legitimate option.
Just because a few Jews in the Middle Ages thought something doesn't make it "Jewish thought" or Jewish philosophy. Especially since everybody knows it is 99% Aristotle and Averroes.
Again, yes you are correct, to many the "baby" are those things that you mentioned but a select few will never believe in such things. Does this automatically mean that they must lead a secular life? His answer is No.
I'm not advocating leading a secular life. But I am against falsifying Judaism and convincing people that this is merely a "not well-known" stream of Jewish philosophy and is presented as a valid alternative.
For people who will never believe such things, I recommend "fake it till you make it". Human beings are really good at suspending disbelief for the sake of a greater good. We all suspend disbelief in order to allow ourselves to enjoy watching a good movie. I suggest these disbelievers should think of traditional Judaism as a really, really good movie that is worth suspending disbelief for. But its only a strategy for coping--not a valid form of Judaism.
Is he using Rambam's brand name to attract attention and sell books? Why not just go with Ralbag, who best I recall espouses most of this stuff fairly explicitly (or Spinoza for that matter 😉)?
While I am fiercely anti socialism, current American society does enforce giving to the poor through מופס (Medicaid, Velfare, food stamps, section 8 housing…😀)
Excellent post! Really got me thinking and introduce me to some new ideas about the history of Judaism. Ultimately, I don’t see how rational Judaism can sustain itself because Judaism itself is built on irrational stories, which the rational Jew would have rejected in their time. And I’ve seen in the Christian world in the 19th century how some critics like Matthew Arnold tried to rescue Christianity through similar sorts of rational arguments, that worked for intellectuals, but not for most people, and the result is that Western culture is now largely secular and unbelieving in any sense of biblical truth.
Interview with Prof Sadik https://youtu.be/2bb0LvqYOoE?si=6qEX9hSNKXVhIhLP
This is directly inline with my thinking! Ive been searching for a long time to find someone that I can relate to in this area. Is there an English version
It looks like most of his work is done in Hebrew but I am looking into getting some pieces translated
I wonder why Prof. Shalom Tsadik thinks a very small sliver of Jewish intellectual history (Greco- Arabian philosophical rationalism of Medieval Spain/Provence of only a few centuries) can serve as a counter-balance to everything that Judaism was for a millennia before it and many centuries after it. This stream was openly revisionist in nature and is obviously an outlier of Judaism. It sorely lacks authenticity since it shamelessly imported its entire approach from the Muslim theologian philosophers of the time.
Does he really believe this is a genuine form of Judaism--no Divine providence, no miracles only nature, no reward and punishment, no afterlife or resurrection and a static G-d who only created the laws of nature and nothing more and is indifferent to prayer?
Who is he fooling? I think he is trying to trick himself and others into thinking all this was really what Rambam believed-- when deep down we all know he didn't.
I’m not sure he thinks it needs to serve as a counter balance. More that this perspective can serve as an outlier option for those that cannot or will not believe in the supernatural
Seconded. No need to throw out the baby with the bathwater if that is how one views the theological postulates of trad Judaism.
My point is that with this approach there is no here baby either once you aren't believing in the afterlife, reward and punishment, prayers being heard, or anything supernatural. It's not a legitimate option-- just like Reform Judaism isn't a legitimate option.
Just because a few Jews in the Middle Ages thought something doesn't make it "Jewish thought" or Jewish philosophy. Especially since everybody knows it is 99% Aristotle and Averroes.
Again, yes you are correct, to many the "baby" are those things that you mentioned but a select few will never believe in such things. Does this automatically mean that they must lead a secular life? His answer is No.
I'm not advocating leading a secular life. But I am against falsifying Judaism and convincing people that this is merely a "not well-known" stream of Jewish philosophy and is presented as a valid alternative.
For people who will never believe such things, I recommend "fake it till you make it". Human beings are really good at suspending disbelief for the sake of a greater good. We all suspend disbelief in order to allow ourselves to enjoy watching a good movie. I suggest these disbelievers should think of traditional Judaism as a really, really good movie that is worth suspending disbelief for. But its only a strategy for coping--not a valid form of Judaism.
Why isn't there a baby? Lo hamidrash hu haikkar elah hamaaseh
Maybe you should learn Perek Chelek in Sanhedrin: ואילו שאין להם חלק לעולם הבא...
Is it your opinion that one shouldn't keep mitzvot if one doesn't believe the traditional credal doctrines?
Is he using Rambam's brand name to attract attention and sell books? Why not just go with Ralbag, who best I recall espouses most of this stuff fairly explicitly (or Spinoza for that matter 😉)?
Interesting...are there any other sources or substackers on his comment about American conservative moments and capitalism?
YK on the post.
While I am fiercely anti socialism, current American society does enforce giving to the poor through מופס (Medicaid, Velfare, food stamps, section 8 housing…😀)