 |
| Professor Shalom Sadik |
Introduction
A recent book by Professor Shalom Sadik—‘A Call For The Revival of Religious Philosophy’ (in Hebrew)[1]—has sparked a ferocious but fascinating debate over the resurgence of interest in the philosophical views of Maimonides. Sadik is calling for a measured return to Maimonidean philosophy. He acknowledges that this path is not for most religious Jews and specifically aims his teachings at a minority of Jews, which he sees as being less than ten per cent of the population (Sadik 2024). Yet R. Ysoscher Katz, Professor Menachem Kellner, Professor Avinoam Rosenak, Professor Ari Ackerman (and others) take issue with Sadik and his interpretation of Maimonides.
Professor Sadik is an “accomplished and well known philosopher” (Katz 2024) who lectures at Ben Gurion University. He is also a “noted and prolific historian of medieval Jewish philosophy, with a long list of important books and articles to his credit” (Kellner 2026). Sadik responded to some of his critics at a recent symposium titled: ‘The Future of Philosophic Religion in Israel.’ In this article, I present some of Sadik’s interesting views as well as some of the considered critiques and responses directed against him.
Is Maimonides’ philosophy for everyone?
In this discussion, references to Maimonides are generally to the radical philosophical Maimonides of the Guide for the Perplexed (Moreh Nevuchim) and not the popular Maimonides (of the Mishneh Torah). Although some of Sadik’s critics claim he intends to create a sweeping return to radical Maimonidean thought, that is not his stated position. Instead, as mentioned, he is well aware that “philosophical inquiry does not accord with the spirit of most people” (Sadik 2026:89). By his own admission, he is not on a philosophical crusade but presents his views only to under 10 per cent of Jewish people who he thinks might be receptive—and otherwise lost—to such teachings:
“I would welcome more people becoming religious philosophers—but I do not believe this is likely” (Sadik 2026:89).
Despite these statements, Sadik has been criticised for being a “hard-core Rambamist, believing that Maimonidean theology is the only correct one,” and if the people understood that Maimonides’ Judaism is a mere “system of behaviors bereft of any credal demands…they would flock to Judaism en masse” (Katz 2014).
Katz reiterates this once again by criticising Sadik’s “fanciful sociological thesis about bringing the masses back into the fold of observance” (Katz 2024), despite Sadik’s stated focus on a tiny minority for whom such ideas might resonate. It is true, however, that Sadik makes no effort or attempt to pacify the other ninety per cent of religious Jews, whom he considers as “believers in the supra-natural” (Sadik 2026:89).
“he bashes other Jewish belief systems. Every other approach is knocked and negated, and Judaism’s mystical tradition comes in for a massive drubbing. Over and over again he dubs it ‘idolatrous’ because in his eyes it is no different from classical avodah zara” (Katz 2024).
But Katz does not back down either in his scathing criticism:
“[Sadik’s] interpretation of Maimonidean theology is one in which most if not all classical Jewish credal tenets like Mattan Torah, nevuah, and reward and punishment are negated. Classical Jewish metaphysics, he believes, is a mere illusion. There is no real God in the classical sense, ergo Mattan Torah could not have been a ‘real’ event – since there is no one ‘there’ to have given the Torah. Nor, for that matter, is the premise of prophecy a metaphysical reality. Prophecy is the act of communing with God, but if there is no classical God, there is no one for the prophets to commune with. Similarly, the ‘problem’ of evil (‘How does God allow bad things to happen to good people?’), which according to tradition has plagued almost every thinker in our tradition – including Moshe Rabbeinu – is no longer a challenge: If a classical God who has agency does not exist, no entity can be taken to task for the evil in our world” (Katz 2024).
Katz continues:
“There is no disputing that most of classical Judaism considers his [Sadik-Maimonides’] beliefs unadulterated heresy. To deny the existence of an actual living God, dismiss the realism of Mattan Torah, and negate the existence of prophecy is considered kefira [heresy]. Therefore, to file his thesis under the rubric of classical Jewish theology is incorrect. It reflects the view of only SOME of Rambam’s interpreters, championed by a small cadre of medieval Jewish philosophers, none of whom are members of the Rishonic pantheon. The rest of Jewish tradition has vehemently rejected such a theology” (Katz 2024).
Appealing to a minority
It seems that Sadik would absolutely agree with Katz on the matter of popular consensus, but argues that he is intentionally appealing to those who are not satisfied with the consensus theology of the masses. Maimonides himself made such distinctions in his writings by repeatedly referring, rather ingloriously, to the “ignorant masses.”
Mysticism as idolatry
Sadik certainly describes mysticism and belief in the supra-natural as a form of idolatry. Katz, however, takes him to task on that issue by distinguishing between a) theoretical Kabbalah, and b) the attempt at the practical application (or 'magicification') of mystical cosmology—like using Psalms for healing and the like—(known as theurgy):
“Sadik pays no heed to this division; he conflates the two, assuming that anyone who embraces mysticism’s theosophy is also an adherent of mystical theurgy” (Katz 2024).
Making space for those seeking a rationalist approach
Sadik (2026:89) notes that there is no space for “religious philosophers” in the contemporary Jewish debate, which is framed by radical conservatives on the right, radical liberals on the left and traditionalists in the middle. For this reason, he candidly aims to introduce another dynamic and option into the religious debate to:
“foster the revival of religious radical [Maimonidean] philosophy as a legitimate and recognized movement within religious society—similar to other contemporary movements that, in my view, are mistaken, but whose persistence I do not expect to end” (Sadik 2026:89).
Radical religious philosophy in the Maimonidean style is not a soft option. It is for people who want to be practising religious Jews but without the mystical worldview which he describes as “idolatry” and “superstition.” He directs his words towards those who have been turned off Judaism because they assume that “being religious necessarily requires belief in the supra-natural” and requires an “uncritical acceptance of tradition and dogma” (Sadik 2026:90). This fourth option is not new, and it even predates the first emergence of the Zohar in 1290 (and Jewish mysticism as we know it), as Maimonides passed away 86 years earlier in 1204. Maimonides presented a path—not without much opposition, and sometimes violence—that was nevertheless followed by many Jews during the Middle Ages:
“I hope to persuade young people with a rationalist outlook and critical thinking that I can introduce them to an old religious way of thinking and living—popular in the Middle Ages but largely forgotten in modern times… I do not aim to be popular… I do not even try to influence everyone I could… I also do not aim to undermine the faith of those who are already committed” (Sadik 2026:90).
Sadik is frank, open and transparent in his approach and informs his readers that he considers himself a student of Maimonides. He boldly informs us that he intends:
“To generate maximum noise in both the religious and secular public spheres, ensuring that large numbers of people become aware of this alternative religious option while they are still at an age when they can change the course of their lives” (Sadik 2026:91).
In addition to, not instead of
The Maimonidean approach was often marked by tremendous opposition, tending towards religious persecution. The Maimonidean Controversies persisted for some centuries and continue to this day. Maimonides’ books were burned, and his teachings were outlawed. Astonishingly, history has never shown such extreme opposition to mystical (Zoharic, Lurianic, and later Chassidic) movements. Because Maimonidean rationalist and philosophical Judaism was so targeted, few people have had the opportunity to explore its theological offerings, and—significantly—this has led:
“to negative practical consequences,
chief among them being the alienation of rational individuals from a religious
way of life” (Sadik 2026:91).
Sadik explains that he adopts the theological approach of live and let live. He specifically structures his teachings in a way that does not deceive his readers. Within a few sentences, any reader can quickly determine whether they want to continue to read or not, and “religious believers who hold to the supra-natural will quickly set the book aside” (Sadik 2026:90):
“My objective is not to challenge belief in the supra-natural, as I recognize that such faith can have positive sociological effects and is likely unshakable… I regard the secular mode of life as deeply harmful” (Sadik 2026:90-91).
The spirituality of philosophy
Sadik makes a very interesting point that is often overlooked in the mystical-philosophical debate, and that is that engagement with rationalism and the intellect is but another form of spiritual experience:
“The life of a religious radical philosopher can be as deeply religious as that of a Hasid or a Kabbalist… Philosophical passion can be as intense as mystical devotion (and can even resonate with those who are entirely uninterested in mysticism). To describe the religious philosopher as cold or devoid of any religious passion is simply incorrect.” (Sadik 2026:91).
Some maintain that it is even possible to reach a state of unio mystica through the Maimonidean philosophy [see: Kotzk Blog: 561) Maimonidean philosophy as a form of rationalist mysticism?].
“The pursuit of truth and its significance is no less powerful than love for a mystical God. The propagation of philosophy and religious philosophy requires no more time or passion than the worship of a traditional or mystical God” (Sadik 2026:95).
According to Sadik, however, there is one major difference:
“religious philosophy establishes a deep, emotional, and personal relation to God—focusing on philosophical truth rather than on a personal God” (Sadik 2026:92).
Sadik understands Maimonidean philosophy to negate the popular emphasis on individual Divine Providence and a “personal God.” This, of course, is anathema to the average mystically inclined religious person. However, on some readings of Maimonides, this uncomfortable distinction certainly does emerge, and some of the mainstream Kabbalistic models are correspondingly challenging. For example, some rabbis maintained that the Kabbalistic notion of ‘dividing’ God into ten Sefirot, or spiritual ‘entities,’ is more challenging than the Christian concept of the Trinity—and may even be more extreme in that the division is extended from three to ten, thus becoming more exaggerated:
“I prefer a Maimonidean-Aristotelian view that identifies God with philosophical truth. Still, even if this view is neither popular (now or in the past) nor entirely correct, it is not, in my opinion, any worse than the views of the Kabbalists. It may be mistaken, but it remains a legitimate opinion. Such a position can and should be criticized, but it should also be recognized as legitimate within the religious community” (Sadik 2026:92).
Athens and/or Jerusalem
Many, throughout the ages, have criticised Maimonides for his adoption of Aristotelian (and other Greek) philosophy. Rabbi Nachman of Breslov, for example, prohibited his students from studying Maimonidean/Greek philosophy. On the other hand, Sadik argues:
“I do not perceive any opposition between Athens and Jerusalem, between being a rabbi and being a philosopher. What matters is the pursuit of truth, which is identical with the divine… According to Maimonides, to be a perfect rabbi is to be a philosopher… In my opinion, the perception of a tension between philosophy and religion has its roots in a Christian definition of religion, which positions religious faith as opposed to philosophy. This way of thinking is foreign to mainstream Judaism until the 15th century and especially alien to Maimonides’ view. To interpret a contradiction or tension between religion and philosophy in medieval Jewish philosophers is both historically anachronistic and philosophically (and religiously) mistaken” (Sadik 2026:94).
Conclusion
Sadik’s views may be regarded as controversial in certain religious and even scholarly circles. He has received (and responded to) a fair share of criticism from rabbis like Ysoscher Katz and scholars like Menachem Kellner, Avinoam Rosenak and Ari Ackerman. Nevertheless, even the direct and harsh criticism from Katz allows for some reluctant technical theological acquiescence:
“One can make a compelling case that Maimonides indeed was a ‘naturalist’ and didn’t believe in the basic Jewish tenets of Mattan Torah, prophecy, reward and punishment, and the like as they are classically understood. It is shocking, troublesome, but certainly not implausible” (Katz 2024).
According to my friend and mentor, Professor Avi Harel, a Maimonidean scholar in his own right :
"People have been trying to understand his [Maimonides'] position for over 800 years; while this is certainly a legitimate interpretation, asserting it definitively seems too presumptuous to me. Unfortunately, I have no one to ask. The late Professor Avraham Nuriel, who was my doctoral supervisor, is no longer with us. If I correctly understand his approach and Maimonides' writings, one must exercise great caution in interpreting him" (Harel in a personal communication).
Perhaps if we understand Professor Shalom Sadik as not wishing to practically displace any traditional hegemony, and remember that—by his own admission—he is only appealing to a minority of rationalist thinkers who do not find the mystical approach meaningful, beneficial or even religiously accurate, then perhaps he has something to offer those who have fallen through the cracks:
“[W]e must find ways to include rational individuals who do not believe in the supernatural. For these people, Maimonides can still serve as the best guide, even in the twenty-first century” (Sadik 2026:95).
Bibliography
Sadik, Shalom, 2026, ‘Between Philosophy, Religion,
and Academic Research—A Response to the Review of My Book Called for a
Resurrection of Religious Philosophy by Four Prominent Scholars’, Religious
Studies Review, vol. 52, no. 1, 89-96.
Katz, Ysoscher, 2024, ‘Rambam is NOT the solution’,
Online source: https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/rambam-is-not-the-solution/. Retrieved 22 September 2026.
Kellner, Menachem, 2026, ‘Shalom Sadik's Maimonides’,
Online source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/rsr.70264. Retrieved 22 September 2026.
No comments:
Post a Comment