Turkeys are native only to North America. Therefore, our ancestors could not possibly have had a name for them. Therefore, none of the birds named in the Torah are turkeys. Therefore, turkeys are kosher.
In connection with your article, it is striking that the רא״ש would not have done a dissection himself to check for a crop . Rather he assumed that the מנהג of avoiding stork in the מסורת של בני אשכנז וצרפת was based upon the assumption of those birds having all 3 סימנים and never the less not being consumed for lack of a מסורת that they are not predators.
This reasoning makes sense in theory, but if it were correct, then every bird species found exclusively in the New World (prior to the Columbian Exchange after 1492) would be considered kosher
I have always wondered about the birds listed in the Torah as non Kosher. Are they limited to the Middle East?That would seemingly make the most sense because then the list would have been understood by the generation of the desert to whom this list was first given.
Can we have more of this erudite discussion of Torah topics with the more rational and academic framework, as this blog set out to focus on, and less of the socio-religious commentary, for which you have no special expertise or more right than anyone else to any form of authoritative opinion at all? This was great. Thank you. Maybe start a separate newsletter about it for those who are interested. I would love this blog to be more like the museum, which is a special place that can be shared by Klal Yisrael. Have you ever thought about this? Sign everyone up to the new one but keep the spaces separate and let whoever wants unsubscribe as they wish from either.
This blog has discussed "socio-religious commentary" from the beginning (ie 15+ years ago). And it's not simply "commentary"; R’ Slifkin has repeatedly emphasized that he sees it as a responsibility to make a meaningful impact in writing about the charedi community.
If those posts don’t interest you, why do you consistently comment on them instead of simply ignoring them?
Before October 7, it was here and there and it was balanced and was presented within the framework of Rationalist Judaism - a natural fit for the blog. I didn't need to agree or even appreciate his tone - it was legitimate discussion of an urgent issue. Since then, it had taken over, become more angry and vindictive than scholarly and the blog has lost its primary original intent and value (unless all along it was just a way to poke at the charedim and now all the guardrails came off, but I don't believe that).
I comment because as much as RNS believes in his cause, I have mine - which is that harsh tones can have a place but that overall it is constructive conversation and problem solving that is the only way to avoid making our problems worse and certainly the only way to progress towards improvements.
My point here is that though I often disagreed in specific ways, I really appreciated what this blog used to be and I miss it. Posts like this one almost never happen anymore (unless they're brief promotions for his feasts or lectures). If this is the new normal, he should change the name from Rationalist Judaism or take it to a new blog because he's long given up on relying on legitimate scholarship to identify the charedim as mystical (and rather benighted) and now just calls them evil and lashes out at every opportunity. You never miss what this blog used to be? Scholarship instead of screed?
>"become more angry and vindictive than scholarly"
" harsh tones"
"now just calls them evil and lashes out at every opportunity."
Once again, you're critiquing the tone. As someone who's been following this blog for the last 15+ years, from the time of the book bans, I can tell you that the tone hasn't changed. It's always been trenchant and direct. Your characterization of it being "angry/vindictive/harsh/lashing" is simply incorrect, and the tone hasn't changed.
I personally am with you, I'd love more scholarship (my blog is purely scholarship, and zero politics), but R' Slifkin has always chosen to devote a significant amount of posts to critiquing, where he feels it's relevant. And that's his choice. It's fine to say you want something different, but not to mischaracterize
I asked ChatGPT "Has the rationalist Judaism blog changed in tone or attitude over its history" - choosing very neutral language. It was a pretty pareve answer
I just followed up with "Did it become increasingly consumed with negativity towards charedim over the last five years or so" and it started with "Short answer:
Yes — there is a clear trend over roughly the last 5–7 years of the Rationalist Judaism blog becoming increasingly focused on critique of the charedi world, and the tone has become more urgent, frustrated, and negative than in its early or middle period. This doesn’t mean every post is negative, but the overall proportion and intensity have definitely risen."
As someone who uses chatbots constantly, I can tell you that your follow-up question was very much a "leading question" . You made your perspective clear, which strongly nudged the chatbot toward the answer you wanted. Your initial question was the proper one, and it already had the correct answer
Although חזקה is a far more rigorous concept in establishing halachic norms than the לימוד זכות idea. The latter is a bit more apologetic in nature . Even פוק חזי מאי עמא דבר assumes that there are really more than one legitimate approaches to the question and common practice clarifies which is “ right”.
>"It must be appreciated that when the turkey question was raised in the 19th century, declaring the turkey to be non-kosher would have denigrated pious Jews around the world who had eaten it for generations as being sinners. There is very strong rabbinic opposition to such a thing; first, due to the Talmud’s statement that God does not allow the righteous to unwittingly sin, and second, due to the principled position of not casting aspersions on earlier generations. Thus, there was strong motivation to find a justification for the common practice."
So essentially, לימוד זכות
However, more broadly, this meta-halachic motivation exists also due to status quo bias. Meaning simply, since people to it, it's likely correct.
Compare the meta-halachic rule:
פוק חזי מאי עמא דבר
And compare also status quo heuristics in other halachic areas:
Turkeys are native only to North America. Therefore, our ancestors could not possibly have had a name for them. Therefore, none of the birds named in the Torah are turkeys. Therefore, turkeys are kosher.
By that argument, secretary birds would be kosher, which they are clearly not. See https://www.rationalistjudaism.com/p/the-bat-and-the-penguin
In connection with your article, it is striking that the רא״ש would not have done a dissection himself to check for a crop . Rather he assumed that the מנהג of avoiding stork in the מסורת של בני אשכנז וצרפת was based upon the assumption of those birds having all 3 סימנים and never the less not being consumed for lack of a מסורת that they are not predators.
This reasoning makes sense in theory, but if it were correct, then every bird species found exclusively in the New World (prior to the Columbian Exchange after 1492) would be considered kosher
I have always wondered about the birds listed in the Torah as non Kosher. Are they limited to the Middle East?That would seemingly make the most sense because then the list would have been understood by the generation of the desert to whom this list was first given.
Can we have more of this erudite discussion of Torah topics with the more rational and academic framework, as this blog set out to focus on, and less of the socio-religious commentary, for which you have no special expertise or more right than anyone else to any form of authoritative opinion at all? This was great. Thank you. Maybe start a separate newsletter about it for those who are interested. I would love this blog to be more like the museum, which is a special place that can be shared by Klal Yisrael. Have you ever thought about this? Sign everyone up to the new one but keep the spaces separate and let whoever wants unsubscribe as they wish from either.
This blog has discussed "socio-religious commentary" from the beginning (ie 15+ years ago). And it's not simply "commentary"; R’ Slifkin has repeatedly emphasized that he sees it as a responsibility to make a meaningful impact in writing about the charedi community.
If those posts don’t interest you, why do you consistently comment on them instead of simply ignoring them?
Before October 7, it was here and there and it was balanced and was presented within the framework of Rationalist Judaism - a natural fit for the blog. I didn't need to agree or even appreciate his tone - it was legitimate discussion of an urgent issue. Since then, it had taken over, become more angry and vindictive than scholarly and the blog has lost its primary original intent and value (unless all along it was just a way to poke at the charedim and now all the guardrails came off, but I don't believe that).
I comment because as much as RNS believes in his cause, I have mine - which is that harsh tones can have a place but that overall it is constructive conversation and problem solving that is the only way to avoid making our problems worse and certainly the only way to progress towards improvements.
My point here is that though I often disagreed in specific ways, I really appreciated what this blog used to be and I miss it. Posts like this one almost never happen anymore (unless they're brief promotions for his feasts or lectures). If this is the new normal, he should change the name from Rationalist Judaism or take it to a new blog because he's long given up on relying on legitimate scholarship to identify the charedim as mystical (and rather benighted) and now just calls them evil and lashes out at every opportunity. You never miss what this blog used to be? Scholarship instead of screed?
>"become more angry and vindictive than scholarly"
" harsh tones"
"now just calls them evil and lashes out at every opportunity."
Once again, you're critiquing the tone. As someone who's been following this blog for the last 15+ years, from the time of the book bans, I can tell you that the tone hasn't changed. It's always been trenchant and direct. Your characterization of it being "angry/vindictive/harsh/lashing" is simply incorrect, and the tone hasn't changed.
I personally am with you, I'd love more scholarship (my blog is purely scholarship, and zero politics), but R' Slifkin has always chosen to devote a significant amount of posts to critiquing, where he feels it's relevant. And that's his choice. It's fine to say you want something different, but not to mischaracterize
I asked ChatGPT "Has the rationalist Judaism blog changed in tone or attitude over its history" - choosing very neutral language. It was a pretty pareve answer
I just followed up with "Did it become increasingly consumed with negativity towards charedim over the last five years or so" and it started with "Short answer:
Yes — there is a clear trend over roughly the last 5–7 years of the Rationalist Judaism blog becoming increasingly focused on critique of the charedi world, and the tone has become more urgent, frustrated, and negative than in its early or middle period. This doesn’t mean every post is negative, but the overall proportion and intensity have definitely risen."
As someone who uses chatbots constantly, I can tell you that your follow-up question was very much a "leading question" . You made your perspective clear, which strongly nudged the chatbot toward the answer you wanted. Your initial question was the proper one, and it already had the correct answer
To you it's an intellectual discussion and not an existential matter of life and death and more.IT'S REAL! No place for calm discussion.
You obviously didn't read anything I wrote here
Although חזקה is a far more rigorous concept in establishing halachic norms than the לימוד זכות idea. The latter is a bit more apologetic in nature . Even פוק חזי מאי עמא דבר assumes that there are really more than one legitimate approaches to the question and common practice clarifies which is “ right”.
Nice piece.
Re this:
>"It must be appreciated that when the turkey question was raised in the 19th century, declaring the turkey to be non-kosher would have denigrated pious Jews around the world who had eaten it for generations as being sinners. There is very strong rabbinic opposition to such a thing; first, due to the Talmud’s statement that God does not allow the righteous to unwittingly sin, and second, due to the principled position of not casting aspersions on earlier generations. Thus, there was strong motivation to find a justification for the common practice."
So essentially, לימוד זכות
However, more broadly, this meta-halachic motivation exists also due to status quo bias. Meaning simply, since people to it, it's likely correct.
Compare the meta-halachic rule:
פוק חזי מאי עמא דבר
And compare also status quo heuristics in other halachic areas:
In monetary, civil, and family law - חזקה
In ritual law (איסור והיתר) -
שב ואל תעשה