The line about donkeys and stuff was a pretty stupid line, being that there is a zohar here saying to do it, as opposed to those examples. You can say that there is another approach, but that has nothing to do with bashing the zohar.
The fact that this line is in this article means that Slifkin is not just bringing two approaches; he is taking sides, as if he has the right to an opinion here. That's an issue. It's one thing to say that there are two approaches in jewish history; it's even one thing to say I understand one side better; it's another to poke fun at one of the sides.
There are ways to point out the same thing without being cynical.
Also, q on this article: it's not exactly merciful to take eggs from the mother; it's just that when you are, we should do it in a more compassionate way. But there is still cruelty. The Zohar seems to addressing that issue, and explaining in its terms that this cruelty is also problematic, but it has a purpose, i.e., man has the right to eat and command over animals and birds even causing distress. But when pain is caused, and God even cares about that ('the angel of the birds' is God's will manifest like the Rambam explains) what about the unnecessary pain that we, Yisroel endure? If God even cares about 'acceptable' pain, all the more so our pain. It's not quite so 'irrational' even if the word angel is used, except to Slifkin who hears angel and doesn't understand it.
(I'm not saying there isn't an angel; I'm saying that the angel means that God actually does care and when birds are distressed, he cares about that, manifest through the complaint of the angel)
Whilst I fully agree with the sentiments about the Shiluach HaKein brigades, I think the Zohar has received unfair press coverage here. The Zohar picks up from where the ‘rationalist’ approach leaves off. The rationalist or peshat approach says the purpose is to minimise the cruelty to the mother. The Zohar is apparently not satisfied with this partial mitigation of the cruelty and asks but what about the tragedy for the mother that has now lost its home and family. As the Zohar puts it, does it not say that God is ‘compassionate towards all His creations’? The Zohar’s answer engages the pain of the mother bird and lays out a domino effect where the cries of the mother bird are heard by God which invokes his mercy on ALL displaced creatures and people. It is actually a beautiful piece which sensitises the reader towards all parts of creation.
The departure point of the Zohar is obviously the text itself. Like with so many other commandments the normative requirement appears very narrow but the values tapped into are much broader and far reaching. Someone who is sensitised by the commandment should indeed wonder about the mother bird. How can they not after the verse describes the mother and young in such vivid human terms as mother and sons?
I encourage people to read the piece (Zohar Chadash, Megillat Ruth - available on Sefaria) and make up their own mind. I hold no dogmatic belief about the Zohar but it doesn't do it justice when people lose sight of the poetry and see only celestial plumbing.
Needless to say, some of the greatest mystics were aspiring vegetarians who showed an incredible sensitivity to the animal (and even the plant) kingdom.
Presumably, you must be referring to the Ariza"l; did you mean anyone else?
I haven't seen what the Ariza"l says inside, but the words of the Zohar on the other hand, are out there for anyone to read. (There is even a reliable translation from Zoharian Aramaic to Mishnaic Hebrew). The said 'Zohar adherents' must provide a source in the Zohar.
@Rafi is reading the Zohar in a straightforward way. I cannot understand how the Ariza"l would argue with it. Maybe I will look up the puzzling Ariza"l this week...
What I understood is that the Arizal didn't seem to be coming from this particular Zohar, rather for the love and importance of Mitzvos, which honestly, is a solid point. If you have the opportunity to do a Mitzvah, even to go out of your way to, wouldn't you want to profess this act of love to God?
Now many Poskim do say that the Mitzvah specifically applies "Ki yikareh," but so is Tzitzis - only when you are wearing 4 corners, but we go out of our way anyways. I'm not sure it is the same as tzitizis, and it could be lehalacha this is different and there is absolutely no reason to go out of your way, who knows? But I have no problem if the Arizal held we try to fulfill mitzvos whenever we could. We love Mitzvos and are supposed to, which is why the yeshivishe chevra *always* run after mitzvos (some call them chumros). The analogies to divorce are super funny but obfuscate the point entirely.
I think the Tora Temima compares Shiluach to shchitah. Should you go around shechting animals wherever you see them so you can say a bracha? It's a good point. But I haven't read the Ariza"l inside so I cannot say.
Yah I saw that, and if he's correct, so be it. The Arizal seems to argue. There is a famous line from the Vilna Gaon that people will come down as a gilgul until they fulfill every single Mitzvah, and he stresses including Shiluach HaKen. Does that also apply to Shechita?
It appears to be a common refrain among mystics to say "we don't really understand what this means" and then just spout the absolute pshat. It feels irresponsible to admit that you don't know what this means and then to share it.
Klal Yisroel is working on Chodesh Elul, a little teshuva, a little humility, a little hakaras haromemus.
And your avoda is to make stupid letzanus of a mitzvah d'oraisa as understood and practiced by a major strand of our mesora.
Great foil, by the way: "most rishonim were rationalist". Let's say. Yiddishkeit ends with rishonim? A huge block of acharonim take Zohar as sefer kadosh. So your letzanus knocks out about half a millennium of mesora. Nishtakcha Torah m'Yisroel for 500 years ad sheba Slifkin umachzira...
Yeah, good one. If we're dumb enough to try to mikayim shiluach hakein as understood by zohar we might as well go find a yafas to'ar. Hardy har.
You're not an am ha'aretz, you're not a kofer. You're just an abject loser.
I assume you missed the last line of the comment. The "Rational Traditionalist" certainly doesn't think calling someone a loser is a required part of hoche'ach tochi'ach. It should be rewritten with that in mind. The proper way to chastise is a difficult thing, but some forms are clearly not right. Elul or no Elul.
On the other hand, Slifkin is saying people are transgressing tsaar baalei chaim and causing a great chilul hashem by following what they think is the Zohar, instead of following the Gemara as explained by prominent Rishonim.
As far as the Zohar in general, the Yaavet"z strongly warned people not to change Judaism based on it. Shabtai Zvi was able to lead people astray with it. The original Misnagdim to the holy Baal Shem Tov were worried about this too. In short, if your only source is a Zohar, it is usually not enough.
I don't love RT's tone at all, and I don't need to stick up for him, but I do get where he's coming from. This is not an isolated post but a person's world view, where this is yet another moment to promote his 'two camp' theory which is, although popular, made up. The last line was awful and I don't condone it.
As far as the Zohar, I don't think the popular chareidi idea of running after shiluach haken has anything to do with this Zohar, see my comment - https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/angry-birds/comment/39069553 though I could be wrong. Slifkin put the two together when I'm not sure they have anything to do with each other.
Not the way you present it, although it allows you to live comfortably in your bubble.
If you mean rejecting the Zohar, and that there were rishonim pre-Zohar discovery who had different views, while we are very machshiv their views, we don't think they had the whole story and would've changed if they would have. They come pretty close as it is, and I think your only problem is that you completely misunderstand the 'mystics' and create a "they" which is ridiculous. You think Judaism can be "rationalist" and really dumb things down a lot.
The mystics are just as "rational" as the "rationalists" and to you, the outsider, they seem to accept some very silly things because "they" are "mystics' and "you" are not. Really all there is an ignorance on your part of what "mysticism" is.
All mysticism is is understanding God's way's and how to get closer to Him. We are lowly bodies, but we have a mind, which is where we connect to God, as Maimonides discusses, and "mysticism" just describes these ideas in a sharper way. Which is why it is more than reasonable to assume these "rationalists" would accept it since they already accepted the basic truths of Judaism.
Your "two camps" in your view are just ways of being able to rationalize a Judaism to make it "more" comfortable for you, but most people see how you are just treading between atheism and God and trying to justify yourself by finding all the "rationalizations" of "rationalist Judaism" to be more comfortable with your Judaism which seems strange, when the only way to be really comfortable is to get into Judaism all the way, which includes accepting the sfiros (well, understanding them is what I really mean, because they're not too hard to accept if you understand them).
So yes, your two camps are made up.
I was a complete atheist for a long time, but when I really get down to it, to not accept the zohar is a first step to not accepting Judaism at all - all the arguments against can be used to deny all of Judaism
Rav Shilat holds that they agreed on many things and only argue on the details. They also use differing languages to present similar ideas. Read בין הכוזרי להרמב"ם.
Zohar as Sefer Kadosh….where was it for alll the Rishonum who were according to Yeridos Hadoros far greater??? Who was it only revealed to Moses DeLeon???
The Rashbi was kadosh. No one serious denies that. He held the Zohar was kadosh.
Moshe Rabbeinu was kadosh. No one serious denies that. He held the Zohar was kadosh.
Rebbi Abba was kadosh. No one serious denies that. He held the Zohar was kadosh.
Rebbi Elazar Beribi Shimon was kadosh. No one serious denies that. He held the Zohar was kadosh.
Rebbi Pinchas Ben Yair was kadosh. No one serious denies that. He held the Zohar was kadosh.
And so on.
But if you're a 'Zohar denier,' (the label for people who deny facts in their opponents eyes, like 'climate change deniers' or 'evolution deniers' or 'covid deniers' and so on) R'l, I'm not sure this will matter to you...
I do believe in Climate change. I do believe in Evolution, I do believe in covid and it’s danger to humanity. I also believe fully with Emunah Sheleima there is NO WAY the ideas presented in the so called “Zohar” could have been authentic and passed down from generation to generation and not have been known or alluded to directly or indirectly by Rambam. He was pretty Kadosh himself, like in from Moshe to Moshe no one arose as great as Moshe.
As to all those others it’s pretty obvious what happened. Just like any haskama on a Sefer today. One guy says he likes it and all the other haskamot come rolling in without anyone else
Really investigating it. After all, if (insert any rabbi name here) likes it, it must be good!
Actually, let me spell it out more clearly: you think the entire above list just blindly followed it because one man made it up and they couldn't realize your stupid facts. I contend that they knew a heck of a lot more than you and that's why they thought it was true. It's you against all of them. The Rishonim you love so much simply didn't have the Zohar so you can't know what they would've said, meanwhile everyone who did followed it. Chances are you're the fool.
I'm a huge fan of the Rambam, who was very, very kadosh. But he still didn't have the Zohar. (He came pretty close without it though.)
You word it cunningly, like as if our greatest minds just follow blindly, when they didn't follow anything blindly in fact. They were all intense masters of logic and reasoning, better than you and me. To bring the stupid analogy from nowadays and from 'the masses' is beyond idiotic or just ignorant of how our mesorah works.
They all 'really investigated it.' And came out with its authenticity because they had information you don't. Simple as that.
You are probably obligated to delete the last two lines of your post. There is no justification for it. This will fix the ongoing Issur and I am sure that after doing so, Rabbi Slifkin will forgive you as well.
In this matter I completely agree with Reb Noson. Here he presents a Torah approach without bashing Chareidim per se, only debating those who perpetrate Tzar baalei chaim. I have an intricate Dvar Torah in my sefer, Nachal Chaim, that supports this approach to the Mitzva of Shiluach Hakein. As for the segula of shiluach Hakein, learning the Perek in Chulin is the segula. In any case, you can't be mekayem the mitzva if you don't really want the eggs or the chicks, and from the beginning intend to put them back after you pick them up.
Not quite. Slifkin cannot write a post wihout attacking charedim.
'What’s next? Overburdening donkeys to give people the mitzvah of relieving their burden? Creating pacts between people to both lose things so that each can fulfill the mitzvah of returning lost objects? Getting divorced in order to have another opportunity to fulfill the mitzvah of getting married? Maybe yeshivah students will join the army in the hopes of going to war and finding a yefas to’ar!'
Yah that was a pretty stupid line, being that there is a zohar here saying to do it, as opposed to those examples. You can say that there is another approach, but that has nothing to do with bashing the zohar.
The fact that this line is in this article means that Slifkin is not just bringing two approaches; he is taking sides, as if he has the right to an opinion here. That's an issue. It's one thing to say that there are two approaches in jewish history; it's even one thing to say I understand one side better; it's another to poke fun at one of the sides.
There are ways to point out the same thing without being cynical.
Also, q on this article: it's not exactly merciful to take eggs from the mother; it's just that when you are, we should do it in a more compassionate way. But there is still cruelty. The Zohar seems to addressing that issue, and explaining in its terms that this cruelty is also problematic, but it has a purpose, i.e., man has the right to eat and command over animals and birds even causing distress. But when pain is caused, and God even cares about that ('the angel of the birds' is God's will manifest like the Rambam explains) what about the unnecessary pain that we, Yisroel endure? If God even cares about 'acceptable' pain, all the more so our pain. It's not quite so 'irrational' even if the word angel is used, except to Slifkin who hears angel and doesn't understand it.
(I'm not saying there isn't an angel; I'm saying that the angel means that God actually does care and when birds are distressed, He cares about that, manifest through the complaint of the angel)
Yes, I think the proper way to look at the Zohar is that it's trying to find a more esoteric reason behind an existing mitzvah.
I don't know if the intent of the Zohar is to perform shiluach hakein, even when you don't intend on consuming the eggs, just to elicit some sort of Divine mercies. That's Rabbi Slifkin's complaint here. It ends up being צער בעלי חיים, with no mitzvah content.
A Chabad rabbi here in Jerusalem, Rabbi Moshe Tzvi Halperin, gave a nice metaphor: If a family decides to move out of a neighborhood, they tell their children, "If the neighbors ask you why we're moving, tell them it's because of xyz reasons." The reasons that the parents tell the children are logical reasons, but they may not be THE reason why the parents decided to move away.
He wanted to say that we can give rational reasons for mitzvos, but then you may scratch your head and ask, "Why couldn't the same objective be attained in some easier way? For example, if we're supposed to be kind to animals, why not be vegetarian already?"
So, the esoteric reason comes to say that there is another level of explanation as the rationale behind the mitzvah.
The Torah commands offering many animal sacrifices as part of service to G-d. How is the mystical view of Shiluach HaKen different from the mainstream concept of animal sacrifices?
Bingo. I must add that (in my humble opinion) even the Zohar does not support what people are doing. The Zohar gives a mystical picture of what happens when you fulfill the mitzvah properly. It isn't telling you to do it when you don't have an obligation to. In fact, according to the Meiri, when one doesn't want the eggs, and only wants the mitzvah, he is EXcluded from the words כי יקרא . Inevitably, it follows that even if he proceeds to perform the שילוח, he hasn't done the mitzvah!!
The Zohar certainly did not refer to people who haven't done a bona fide Shiluach HaKein.
I think I traced today's attitude to the Ari z"l as brought down by the Chid"a in Birkei Yoseph. That, along with the shv"t Chavos Ya'ir with the support of the Aruch HaShulchan.
Interesting to note: even the Chid"a writes that Rabbi Pinchas Horowitz (author of the Sefer Hafla'a) was very opposed to the practise of looking for birds to chase; on the grounds of the mitzvah being a form of compassion.
Also Rabbi Baruch Epstein, author of the famed Chumash Torah Temima, voices the same sentiment in the notes in this week's portion. Ironically, he is the son of the Aruch Hashulchan, who was so supportive of the Chavos Ya'ir.
Very convenient to ignore the incontrovertible fact the Chazal say האומר על קן ציפור יגיעו רחמך משתתקין אותו, which makes it clear that even the Rationalists would agree there is more that meets the eye here.
To be fair, the Rambam writes that that Mishna is not Halachically accepted. He agrees that his entire approach to Mitzvos is a subject of a Machlokes Rishonim.
No. Unless I missed a line, the post is about how the "reducto ad absurdum" of irrationalist thinking is having a שילוח הקן kit. MY point was simply that such a kit wouldn't even work, since it's מזומן, and isn't חייב in שילוח.
I think Slifkin may be cynical of people who follow the mitzvah as explained in the Zohar but that is lav davka chareidim. I bet there are even ignorant traditional chilonim that pay to do it. There are many chareidim rabbonim that are oppressed.
Your cellphone’s auto-correct feature didn’t occur out of the blue. Obviously Hashem was reminding you not to be a discourteous inconsiderate. Nothing happens without a reason.
מי שאמר בתחנונים מי שריחם על קן ציפור שלא ליקח האם על הבנים או שלא לשחוט אותו ואת בנו ביום אחד ירחם עלינו וכיוצא בענין זה משתקין אותו מפני שמצות אלו גזרת הכתוב הן ואינן רחמים שאילו היו מפני רחמים לא היה מתיר לנו שחיטה כל עיקר
(Yes, I am aware of the contradiction from Moreh Nevuchim.)
Various answers have been suggested. The problem with almost all of them is that they attempt to differentiate between what the Mishnah (which is the source of the codification in Hilchos Tefilah) is discussing and what the Moreh Nevuchim is discussing, yet in Moreh Nevuchim itself he openly admits that his position is at odds with the Mishnah.
The topic was discussed on this blog a bunch of years ago. I believe it was in part of a series of guest posts by David Ohsie reviewing/critiquing Rabbi Meiselman’s book.
If I remember correctly, Mr. Ohsie suggested something along the lines of: Rambam believed that the Mishnah was wrong philosophically. So in his book of philosophy he went with the philosophical truth even against the Mishnah. But in Mishneh Torah, he is codifying the halachah, and the halachah is whatever the Mishnah says. This sidesteps the issue I mentioned above, but some might not find this palatable as a methodology.
In addition to the mitzvot enumerated, my late rav once suggested getting a divorce so a get can be written, and to arrange a murder so the bet din can put the perpetrator to death.
I have heard people explain that being vegetarian is prohibited in part because the halachot of shechita and kashrut exist (i.e., by being vegetarian you are passing up the opportunity to, at least by proxy if not directly, etc. observe the halachot of shechita, basar ve-chalav, etc.)
"What’s next? Overburdening donkeys to give people the mitzvah of relieving their burden? Creating pacts between people to both lose things so that each can fulfill the mitzvah of returning lost objects? Getting divorced in order to have another opportunity to fulfill the mitzvah of getting married?"
-- Isn't there an example in the Talmud about a Sage doing one of these "what's nexts"? Well, not exactly one of the ones you listed, but a different one, almost equally as outlandish?
Even though im definetly more rationally inclined, i wouldnt reject a sefer that every talmid chacham who learned it treated it with tremendous reverence regardless of assumed authorship. If the Rambam read the Zohar and rejected it, that would be a different story. Until then, אלו ואלו.
The line about donkeys and stuff was a pretty stupid line, being that there is a zohar here saying to do it, as opposed to those examples. You can say that there is another approach, but that has nothing to do with bashing the zohar.
The fact that this line is in this article means that Slifkin is not just bringing two approaches; he is taking sides, as if he has the right to an opinion here. That's an issue. It's one thing to say that there are two approaches in jewish history; it's even one thing to say I understand one side better; it's another to poke fun at one of the sides.
There are ways to point out the same thing without being cynical.
Also, q on this article: it's not exactly merciful to take eggs from the mother; it's just that when you are, we should do it in a more compassionate way. But there is still cruelty. The Zohar seems to addressing that issue, and explaining in its terms that this cruelty is also problematic, but it has a purpose, i.e., man has the right to eat and command over animals and birds even causing distress. But when pain is caused, and God even cares about that ('the angel of the birds' is God's will manifest like the Rambam explains) what about the unnecessary pain that we, Yisroel endure? If God even cares about 'acceptable' pain, all the more so our pain. It's not quite so 'irrational' even if the word angel is used, except to Slifkin who hears angel and doesn't understand it.
(I'm not saying there isn't an angel; I'm saying that the angel means that God actually does care and when birds are distressed, he cares about that, manifest through the complaint of the angel)
Whilst I fully agree with the sentiments about the Shiluach HaKein brigades, I think the Zohar has received unfair press coverage here. The Zohar picks up from where the ‘rationalist’ approach leaves off. The rationalist or peshat approach says the purpose is to minimise the cruelty to the mother. The Zohar is apparently not satisfied with this partial mitigation of the cruelty and asks but what about the tragedy for the mother that has now lost its home and family. As the Zohar puts it, does it not say that God is ‘compassionate towards all His creations’? The Zohar’s answer engages the pain of the mother bird and lays out a domino effect where the cries of the mother bird are heard by God which invokes his mercy on ALL displaced creatures and people. It is actually a beautiful piece which sensitises the reader towards all parts of creation.
The departure point of the Zohar is obviously the text itself. Like with so many other commandments the normative requirement appears very narrow but the values tapped into are much broader and far reaching. Someone who is sensitised by the commandment should indeed wonder about the mother bird. How can they not after the verse describes the mother and young in such vivid human terms as mother and sons?
I encourage people to read the piece (Zohar Chadash, Megillat Ruth - available on Sefaria) and make up their own mind. I hold no dogmatic belief about the Zohar but it doesn't do it justice when people lose sight of the poetry and see only celestial plumbing.
Needless to say, some of the greatest mystics were aspiring vegetarians who showed an incredible sensitivity to the animal (and even the plant) kingdom.
Interesting. But if you are correct, then the Zohar has been seriously misunderstood by its most devoted adherents.
Presumably, you must be referring to the Ariza"l; did you mean anyone else?
I haven't seen what the Ariza"l says inside, but the words of the Zohar on the other hand, are out there for anyone to read. (There is even a reliable translation from Zoharian Aramaic to Mishnaic Hebrew). The said 'Zohar adherents' must provide a source in the Zohar.
@Rafi is reading the Zohar in a straightforward way. I cannot understand how the Ariza"l would argue with it. Maybe I will look up the puzzling Ariza"l this week...
What I understood is that the Arizal didn't seem to be coming from this particular Zohar, rather for the love and importance of Mitzvos, which honestly, is a solid point. If you have the opportunity to do a Mitzvah, even to go out of your way to, wouldn't you want to profess this act of love to God?
Now many Poskim do say that the Mitzvah specifically applies "Ki yikareh," but so is Tzitzis - only when you are wearing 4 corners, but we go out of our way anyways. I'm not sure it is the same as tzitizis, and it could be lehalacha this is different and there is absolutely no reason to go out of your way, who knows? But I have no problem if the Arizal held we try to fulfill mitzvos whenever we could. We love Mitzvos and are supposed to, which is why the yeshivishe chevra *always* run after mitzvos (some call them chumros). The analogies to divorce are super funny but obfuscate the point entirely.
I think the Tora Temima compares Shiluach to shchitah. Should you go around shechting animals wherever you see them so you can say a bracha? It's a good point. But I haven't read the Ariza"l inside so I cannot say.
Yah I saw that, and if he's correct, so be it. The Arizal seems to argue. There is a famous line from the Vilna Gaon that people will come down as a gilgul until they fulfill every single Mitzvah, and he stresses including Shiluach HaKen. Does that also apply to Shechita?
It appears to be a common refrain among mystics to say "we don't really understand what this means" and then just spout the absolute pshat. It feels irresponsible to admit that you don't know what this means and then to share it.
Really well said. This comment deserves recognition! (even though I don't agree 100% as I explained my take earlier...)
What can I say? I laugh at you and I cry for you.
Klal Yisroel is working on Chodesh Elul, a little teshuva, a little humility, a little hakaras haromemus.
And your avoda is to make stupid letzanus of a mitzvah d'oraisa as understood and practiced by a major strand of our mesora.
Great foil, by the way: "most rishonim were rationalist". Let's say. Yiddishkeit ends with rishonim? A huge block of acharonim take Zohar as sefer kadosh. So your letzanus knocks out about half a millennium of mesora. Nishtakcha Torah m'Yisroel for 500 years ad sheba Slifkin umachzira...
Yeah, good one. If we're dumb enough to try to mikayim shiluach hakein as understood by zohar we might as well go find a yafas to'ar. Hardy har.
You're not an am ha'aretz, you're not a kofer. You're just an abject loser.
Thanks for illustrating what the spirit of Elul is all about.
To be clear, you are being mechalel kvod shamayim in his view, and Elul is as good a time as any to fix that.
I'm not picking sides, just explaining why his take is not against the spirit of Elul. If he's right is another thing.
I assume you missed the last line of the comment. The "Rational Traditionalist" certainly doesn't think calling someone a loser is a required part of hoche'ach tochi'ach. It should be rewritten with that in mind. The proper way to chastise is a difficult thing, but some forms are clearly not right. Elul or no Elul.
On the other hand, Slifkin is saying people are transgressing tsaar baalei chaim and causing a great chilul hashem by following what they think is the Zohar, instead of following the Gemara as explained by prominent Rishonim.
As far as the Zohar in general, the Yaavet"z strongly warned people not to change Judaism based on it. Shabtai Zvi was able to lead people astray with it. The original Misnagdim to the holy Baal Shem Tov were worried about this too. In short, if your only source is a Zohar, it is usually not enough.
I don't love RT's tone at all, and I don't need to stick up for him, but I do get where he's coming from. This is not an isolated post but a person's world view, where this is yet another moment to promote his 'two camp' theory which is, although popular, made up. The last line was awful and I don't condone it.
As far as the Zohar, I don't think the popular chareidi idea of running after shiluach haken has anything to do with this Zohar, see my comment - https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/angry-birds/comment/39069553 though I could be wrong. Slifkin put the two together when I'm not sure they have anything to do with each other.
The two camp theory is "made up"? There is division in Jewish history between rationalists and mystics?!
Not the way you present it, although it allows you to live comfortably in your bubble.
If you mean rejecting the Zohar, and that there were rishonim pre-Zohar discovery who had different views, while we are very machshiv their views, we don't think they had the whole story and would've changed if they would have. They come pretty close as it is, and I think your only problem is that you completely misunderstand the 'mystics' and create a "they" which is ridiculous. You think Judaism can be "rationalist" and really dumb things down a lot.
The mystics are just as "rational" as the "rationalists" and to you, the outsider, they seem to accept some very silly things because "they" are "mystics' and "you" are not. Really all there is an ignorance on your part of what "mysticism" is.
All mysticism is is understanding God's way's and how to get closer to Him. We are lowly bodies, but we have a mind, which is where we connect to God, as Maimonides discusses, and "mysticism" just describes these ideas in a sharper way. Which is why it is more than reasonable to assume these "rationalists" would accept it since they already accepted the basic truths of Judaism.
Your "two camps" in your view are just ways of being able to rationalize a Judaism to make it "more" comfortable for you, but most people see how you are just treading between atheism and God and trying to justify yourself by finding all the "rationalizations" of "rationalist Judaism" to be more comfortable with your Judaism which seems strange, when the only way to be really comfortable is to get into Judaism all the way, which includes accepting the sfiros (well, understanding them is what I really mean, because they're not too hard to accept if you understand them).
So yes, your two camps are made up.
I was a complete atheist for a long time, but when I really get down to it, to not accept the zohar is a first step to not accepting Judaism at all - all the arguments against can be used to deny all of Judaism
Rav Shilat holds that they agreed on many things and only argue on the details. They also use differing languages to present similar ideas. Read בין הכוזרי להרמב"ם.
I hear.
Zohar as Sefer Kadosh….where was it for alll the Rishonum who were according to Yeridos Hadoros far greater??? Who was it only revealed to Moses DeLeon???
In no particular order:
The Vilna Gaon was kadosh. No one serious denies that. He held the Zohar was kadosh.
The Ramban was kadosh. No one serious denies that. He held the Zohar was kadosh.
The Maharshal was kadosh. No one serious denies that. He held the Zohar was kadosh.
The Baal HaTanya was kadosh. No one serious denies that. He held the Zohar was kadosh.
The Radvaz was kadosh. No one serious denies that. He held the Zohar was kadosh.
The Beis Yosef was kadosh. No one serious denies that. He held the Zohar was kadosh.
The Shach was kadosh. No one serious denies that. He held the Zohar was kadosh.
The Ketzos was kadosh. No one serious denies that. He held the Zohar was kadosh.
The Mishna Berura was kadosh. No one serious denies that. He held the Zohar was kadosh.
The Nefesh Hachaim was kadosh. No one serious denies that. He held the Zohar was kadosh.
I should really add more:
The Rashbi was kadosh. No one serious denies that. He held the Zohar was kadosh.
Moshe Rabbeinu was kadosh. No one serious denies that. He held the Zohar was kadosh.
Rebbi Abba was kadosh. No one serious denies that. He held the Zohar was kadosh.
Rebbi Elazar Beribi Shimon was kadosh. No one serious denies that. He held the Zohar was kadosh.
Rebbi Pinchas Ben Yair was kadosh. No one serious denies that. He held the Zohar was kadosh.
And so on.
But if you're a 'Zohar denier,' (the label for people who deny facts in their opponents eyes, like 'climate change deniers' or 'evolution deniers' or 'covid deniers' and so on) R'l, I'm not sure this will matter to you...
I do believe in Climate change. I do believe in Evolution, I do believe in covid and it’s danger to humanity. I also believe fully with Emunah Sheleima there is NO WAY the ideas presented in the so called “Zohar” could have been authentic and passed down from generation to generation and not have been known or alluded to directly or indirectly by Rambam. He was pretty Kadosh himself, like in from Moshe to Moshe no one arose as great as Moshe.
As to all those others it’s pretty obvious what happened. Just like any haskama on a Sefer today. One guy says he likes it and all the other haskamot come rolling in without anyone else
Really investigating it. After all, if (insert any rabbi name here) likes it, it must be good!
Hatzlacha.
Actually, let me spell it out more clearly: you think the entire above list just blindly followed it because one man made it up and they couldn't realize your stupid facts. I contend that they knew a heck of a lot more than you and that's why they thought it was true. It's you against all of them. The Rishonim you love so much simply didn't have the Zohar so you can't know what they would've said, meanwhile everyone who did followed it. Chances are you're the fool.
I'm a huge fan of the Rambam, who was very, very kadosh. But he still didn't have the Zohar. (He came pretty close without it though.)
You word it cunningly, like as if our greatest minds just follow blindly, when they didn't follow anything blindly in fact. They were all intense masters of logic and reasoning, better than you and me. To bring the stupid analogy from nowadays and from 'the masses' is beyond idiotic or just ignorant of how our mesorah works.
They all 'really investigated it.' And came out with its authenticity because they had information you don't. Simple as that.
I believe onaas devarim is an issur d'oraissa.
Edit: Dear Tyirah writer,
You are probably obligated to delete the last two lines of your post. There is no justification for it. This will fix the ongoing Issur and I am sure that after doing so, Rabbi Slifkin will forgive you as well.
https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/angry-birds/comment/39065545
In this matter I completely agree with Reb Noson. Here he presents a Torah approach without bashing Chareidim per se, only debating those who perpetrate Tzar baalei chaim. I have an intricate Dvar Torah in my sefer, Nachal Chaim, that supports this approach to the Mitzva of Shiluach Hakein. As for the segula of shiluach Hakein, learning the Perek in Chulin is the segula. In any case, you can't be mekayem the mitzva if you don't really want the eggs or the chicks, and from the beginning intend to put them back after you pick them up.
Not quite. Slifkin cannot write a post wihout attacking charedim.
'What’s next? Overburdening donkeys to give people the mitzvah of relieving their burden? Creating pacts between people to both lose things so that each can fulfill the mitzvah of returning lost objects? Getting divorced in order to have another opportunity to fulfill the mitzvah of getting married? Maybe yeshivah students will join the army in the hopes of going to war and finding a yefas to’ar!'
Yah that was a pretty stupid line, being that there is a zohar here saying to do it, as opposed to those examples. You can say that there is another approach, but that has nothing to do with bashing the zohar.
The fact that this line is in this article means that Slifkin is not just bringing two approaches; he is taking sides, as if he has the right to an opinion here. That's an issue. It's one thing to say that there are two approaches in jewish history; it's even one thing to say I understand one side better; it's another to poke fun at one of the sides.
There are ways to point out the same thing without being cynical.
Also, q on this article: it's not exactly merciful to take eggs from the mother; it's just that when you are, we should do it in a more compassionate way. But there is still cruelty. The Zohar seems to addressing that issue, and explaining in its terms that this cruelty is also problematic, but it has a purpose, i.e., man has the right to eat and command over animals and birds even causing distress. But when pain is caused, and God even cares about that ('the angel of the birds' is God's will manifest like the Rambam explains) what about the unnecessary pain that we, Yisroel endure? If God even cares about 'acceptable' pain, all the more so our pain. It's not quite so 'irrational' even if the word angel is used, except to Slifkin who hears angel and doesn't understand it.
(I'm not saying there isn't an angel; I'm saying that the angel means that God actually does care and when birds are distressed, He cares about that, manifest through the complaint of the angel)
"there is a zohar here saying to do it"
No there is not a zohar here saying to do it. How can you write such nonsense?
I happen to agree as I explained, but in Slifkin's explanation there is
Yes, I think the proper way to look at the Zohar is that it's trying to find a more esoteric reason behind an existing mitzvah.
I don't know if the intent of the Zohar is to perform shiluach hakein, even when you don't intend on consuming the eggs, just to elicit some sort of Divine mercies. That's Rabbi Slifkin's complaint here. It ends up being צער בעלי חיים, with no mitzvah content.
A Chabad rabbi here in Jerusalem, Rabbi Moshe Tzvi Halperin, gave a nice metaphor: If a family decides to move out of a neighborhood, they tell their children, "If the neighbors ask you why we're moving, tell them it's because of xyz reasons." The reasons that the parents tell the children are logical reasons, but they may not be THE reason why the parents decided to move away.
He wanted to say that we can give rational reasons for mitzvos, but then you may scratch your head and ask, "Why couldn't the same objective be attained in some easier way? For example, if we're supposed to be kind to animals, why not be vegetarian already?"
So, the esoteric reason comes to say that there is another level of explanation as the rationale behind the mitzvah.
Bet you at least two of those things will happen in the near future
The Torah commands offering many animal sacrifices as part of service to G-d. How is the mystical view of Shiluach HaKen different from the mainstream concept of animal sacrifices?
The specific explanation here is not to encourage compassion, but to give a visceral image of "imagine it was you up there."
You are letting the animal live to suffer while sacrifices supposedly are designed to quickly end suffering by cutting the aorta
Bingo. I must add that (in my humble opinion) even the Zohar does not support what people are doing. The Zohar gives a mystical picture of what happens when you fulfill the mitzvah properly. It isn't telling you to do it when you don't have an obligation to. In fact, according to the Meiri, when one doesn't want the eggs, and only wants the mitzvah, he is EXcluded from the words כי יקרא . Inevitably, it follows that even if he proceeds to perform the שילוח, he hasn't done the mitzvah!!
The Zohar certainly did not refer to people who haven't done a bona fide Shiluach HaKein.
I think I traced today's attitude to the Ari z"l as brought down by the Chid"a in Birkei Yoseph. That, along with the shv"t Chavos Ya'ir with the support of the Aruch HaShulchan.
Interesting to note: even the Chid"a writes that Rabbi Pinchas Horowitz (author of the Sefer Hafla'a) was very opposed to the practise of looking for birds to chase; on the grounds of the mitzvah being a form of compassion.
Also Rabbi Baruch Epstein, author of the famed Chumash Torah Temima, voices the same sentiment in the notes in this week's portion. Ironically, he is the son of the Aruch Hashulchan, who was so supportive of the Chavos Ya'ir.
Very convenient to ignore the incontrovertible fact the Chazal say האומר על קן ציפור יגיעו רחמך משתתקין אותו, which makes it clear that even the Rationalists would agree there is more that meets the eye here.
Legitimate rationalists that is.
To be fair, the Rambam writes that that Mishna is not Halachically accepted. He agrees that his entire approach to Mitzvos is a subject of a Machlokes Rishonim.
This kit is particularly ridiculous in light of Rashi - כי יקרא – פרט למזומן, and יורה דעה רצב:ב.
Isn't that what slifkin's whole point is?
No. Unless I missed a line, the post is about how the "reducto ad absurdum" of irrationalist thinking is having a שילוח הקן kit. MY point was simply that such a kit wouldn't even work, since it's מזומן, and isn't חייב in שילוח.
The kit is חייב cause it isn't מזומן if done correctly. Brush up on the דינים.
Got it!
Perhaps we can rationalize beating dogs as fulfilling an esoteric mitzvah. How loud do they have to yelp?
I think Slifkin may be cynical of people who follow the mitzvah as explained in the Zohar but that is lav davka chareidim. I bet there are even ignorant traditional chilonim that pay to do it. There are many chareidim rabbonim that are oppressed.
My cell phone changed what I was writing; it should say opposed, not oppressed.
@Sender
Your cellphone’s auto-correct feature didn’t occur out of the blue. Obviously Hashem was reminding you not to be a discourteous inconsiderate. Nothing happens without a reason.
Slifkin is an ordained rabbi?
@sender,
Have a little derech eretz. That’s RAV Slifkin to you.
The key word here is….”ignorant”….
הלכות תפלה ט:ז
מי שאמר בתחנונים מי שריחם על קן ציפור שלא ליקח האם על הבנים או שלא לשחוט אותו ואת בנו ביום אחד ירחם עלינו וכיוצא בענין זה משתקין אותו מפני שמצות אלו גזרת הכתוב הן ואינן רחמים שאילו היו מפני רחמים לא היה מתיר לנו שחיטה כל עיקר
(Yes, I am aware of the contradiction from Moreh Nevuchim.)
That's a very good point. Are you aware of any answers that reconcile this contradiction?
Various answers have been suggested. The problem with almost all of them is that they attempt to differentiate between what the Mishnah (which is the source of the codification in Hilchos Tefilah) is discussing and what the Moreh Nevuchim is discussing, yet in Moreh Nevuchim itself he openly admits that his position is at odds with the Mishnah.
The topic was discussed on this blog a bunch of years ago. I believe it was in part of a series of guest posts by David Ohsie reviewing/critiquing Rabbi Meiselman’s book.
If I remember correctly, Mr. Ohsie suggested something along the lines of: Rambam believed that the Mishnah was wrong philosophically. So in his book of philosophy he went with the philosophical truth even against the Mishnah. But in Mishneh Torah, he is codifying the halachah, and the halachah is whatever the Mishnah says. This sidesteps the issue I mentioned above, but some might not find this palatable as a methodology.
The moreh says that he isn't claiming to fully rationalize God's will. Does that help?
Yes, I am aware of that answer, and many times in the Moreh that is the only one, but was wondering if there may be another one here.
In addition to the mitzvot enumerated, my late rav once suggested getting a divorce so a get can be written, and to arrange a murder so the bet din can put the perpetrator to death.
I have heard people explain that being vegetarian is prohibited in part because the halachot of shechita and kashrut exist (i.e., by being vegetarian you are passing up the opportunity to, at least by proxy if not directly, etc. observe the halachot of shechita, basar ve-chalav, etc.)
There are also mitzvot of owning slaves. Presumably those people would want to have slaves in order to fulfill those mitzvot correctly
Absolutely
That’s awesome 😂
Eggcellent!
Watch Batman much…? 😜
"What’s next? Overburdening donkeys to give people the mitzvah of relieving their burden? Creating pacts between people to both lose things so that each can fulfill the mitzvah of returning lost objects? Getting divorced in order to have another opportunity to fulfill the mitzvah of getting married?"
-- Isn't there an example in the Talmud about a Sage doing one of these "what's nexts"? Well, not exactly one of the ones you listed, but a different one, almost equally as outlandish?
Even though im definetly more rationally inclined, i wouldnt reject a sefer that every talmid chacham who learned it treated it with tremendous reverence regardless of assumed authorship. If the Rambam read the Zohar and rejected it, that would be a different story. Until then, אלו ואלו.
"Maybe yeshivah students will join the army in the hopes of going to war and finding a yefas to’ar."
As opposed to those who join the army in the hopes finding a yefas to’ar right there. And then some. Courtesy of the holy state of Israel.