I too, when I read his article, realized that he is completely ignoring the prohibition against murder. Being willing to give up your life is not the same as murder.
It seems that some people think that the issue is the loss of life, not the murder. They don't understand the concept, because they didn't learn Tosfos in Yevamos.
And the main thrust of your article, that Hilchos Pikuach Nefashos is not something to be decided on the fly, is totally lost on these people. They accuse others of being cavalier about human life, yet show their own frivolous attitude to Lo Sirtzach with these articles.
May 11, 2023·edited May 11, 2023Liked by מכרכר בכל עוז
Isn't it funny how Slifkin isn't abashed by putting these kinds of pieces out? To me this is an indication of a far worse problem. He knows what *we'll* respond. But he is part of a different world where they respect this kind of thinking.
There apparenty is a world, which Natan is actually a part of which respects this way of thinking. As long as we have something novel and modern which disagrees with our Mesorah, it's highly intellectual and relevant.
Natan, you are part of a different world. Bye bye!
(Though we'll still comment because it's fun... Plus there are those within our fold who are confused by your take.)
At this point I'm not sure what the point of the Torah is. According to "rationalism", we should be bending all issues towards what is rational to us. Any statement made by Chazal, of any kind, can be reinterpreted as them following what was rational to *them*, but we will now follow what is rational to *us*. Originally limited to scientific matters and aggadah, now this ideology is being applied to the halacha! ושערו חרבו מאד
Its interesting that instead of taking the obvious path of defending full irreversible brain death as being actual death - which is what many respected poskim have done, including R Dovid Feinstein and reported by R Tendler in the name of R Moshe - he feels the need to create a new chiddush and shtup it into his rationalism vs mysticism dichotomy. It honestly has nothing to do with it whatsoever and is a halachic shayla like all others.
Perhaps one can say that those with a more rationalistic worldview are more likely to accept the viewpoints of scientists who claim that when the brain has ceased functioning, irreversible death has occurred and the ventilator is merely doing a mechanical process. But even if one accepts that as so, defining whether that is enough is still a halachic shayla! One who doesn't accept the science won't have the shayla in the first place. However, the actual psak certainly has nothing to do with this supposed imaginary dichotomy.
This is exaclty what we needed! BH, for years so many of us didn't know how to respond to R Dr Slifkin. Since he had all these years of learning and so many books written, although we could see the hashkafik and halachic flaws, we didn't have the proper tools to counter his claims. For years he has been left unchecked having a website full of leshon hara against Torah Jews and terrible haskafa, and finally we see a great group of kenai lHashem without any goals but the fight for Torah and Truth. Thank you very much for this!
Fantastic. Two questions to academic rationalist types:
1) Name some real nafka minas between the reality you live in and that of your average atheist. Underneath all the lomdus, a lack of fundamental differences should give some pause, to say the least. Really? The Torah happens to support every new academic/liberal idea?
2) What are some things non-Jewish rationalists believe that you do not believe because you don't think it can fit in the Torah, even though your natural inclination is it makes sense and you'd accept?
Perhaps such hyper-rationalist inclinations are actually a nisayon in emuna that some are assigned to struggle with more than others, and isn't just one of the shiv'im panim... the Yetzer haRa is most dangerous when we give him a hechsher...
I think this article misses the whole point. The issue with his argument is that it’s just some vague effective altruist argument buttressed by some obscure cherry-picked source words that seem to say the same thing as him, as long as it’s appropriately isolated from context. Effective altruists make very distinct philosophical claims about the world and he never bothers to support those claims, choosing to pretend they are obvious, as is common for such type of claims. The reason to stick with our traditional sources is that they have an entirely different philosophy, so to make a claim within the context of Halacha, you must accept the premises of Halacha. Otherwise, you’re just another pompous arrogant effective altruist, sneering with your math equations and “data” how you have the perfect answer to questions that have been bothering humanity forever.
Really excellent!! I agree with almost everything. One point about your application of R Yehuda Hachasid - "The case there is where a gentile is vowing to kill one of the two, and there R. Yehuda Hachasid finds it praiseworthy for the am ha’aretz to offer himself as the sacrifice."
In the question of brain death it is the doctor that is committing murder - the donor is only offering himself as the sacrifice, no? (This cannot be said regarding his proof from the 2 men in the desert, which is different not only because it is only shev vaal taaseh, but as you pointed out, because no-one is being murdered.)
But don't get me wrong, I agree 100% that NS messed up royally in his analysis, which he has no business even trying to deal with to begin with. I also think a big problem with his piece is why stop at brain death? Why not every vegetative state patient, or terminally ill, or downs syndrome...sound familiar?
I too, when I read his article, realized that he is completely ignoring the prohibition against murder. Being willing to give up your life is not the same as murder.
It seems that some people think that the issue is the loss of life, not the murder. They don't understand the concept, because they didn't learn Tosfos in Yevamos.
And the main thrust of your article, that Hilchos Pikuach Nefashos is not something to be decided on the fly, is totally lost on these people. They accuse others of being cavalier about human life, yet show their own frivolous attitude to Lo Sirtzach with these articles.
Isn't it funny how Slifkin isn't abashed by putting these kinds of pieces out? To me this is an indication of a far worse problem. He knows what *we'll* respond. But he is part of a different world where they respect this kind of thinking.
Just to list two from many:
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/the-limits-of-academic-criticism
https://irrationalistmodoxism.substack.com/p/why-i-changed-my-mind-about-female
There apparenty is a world, which Natan is actually a part of which respects this way of thinking. As long as we have something novel and modern which disagrees with our Mesorah, it's highly intellectual and relevant.
Natan, you are part of a different world. Bye bye!
(Though we'll still comment because it's fun... Plus there are those within our fold who are confused by your take.)
Well done!
At this point I'm not sure what the point of the Torah is. According to "rationalism", we should be bending all issues towards what is rational to us. Any statement made by Chazal, of any kind, can be reinterpreted as them following what was rational to *them*, but we will now follow what is rational to *us*. Originally limited to scientific matters and aggadah, now this ideology is being applied to the halacha! ושערו חרבו מאד
Excellent post.
Its interesting that instead of taking the obvious path of defending full irreversible brain death as being actual death - which is what many respected poskim have done, including R Dovid Feinstein and reported by R Tendler in the name of R Moshe - he feels the need to create a new chiddush and shtup it into his rationalism vs mysticism dichotomy. It honestly has nothing to do with it whatsoever and is a halachic shayla like all others.
Perhaps one can say that those with a more rationalistic worldview are more likely to accept the viewpoints of scientists who claim that when the brain has ceased functioning, irreversible death has occurred and the ventilator is merely doing a mechanical process. But even if one accepts that as so, defining whether that is enough is still a halachic shayla! One who doesn't accept the science won't have the shayla in the first place. However, the actual psak certainly has nothing to do with this supposed imaginary dichotomy.
This is exaclty what we needed! BH, for years so many of us didn't know how to respond to R Dr Slifkin. Since he had all these years of learning and so many books written, although we could see the hashkafik and halachic flaws, we didn't have the proper tools to counter his claims. For years he has been left unchecked having a website full of leshon hara against Torah Jews and terrible haskafa, and finally we see a great group of kenai lHashem without any goals but the fight for Torah and Truth. Thank you very much for this!
Fantastic. Two questions to academic rationalist types:
1) Name some real nafka minas between the reality you live in and that of your average atheist. Underneath all the lomdus, a lack of fundamental differences should give some pause, to say the least. Really? The Torah happens to support every new academic/liberal idea?
2) What are some things non-Jewish rationalists believe that you do not believe because you don't think it can fit in the Torah, even though your natural inclination is it makes sense and you'd accept?
Perhaps such hyper-rationalist inclinations are actually a nisayon in emuna that some are assigned to struggle with more than others, and isn't just one of the shiv'im panim... the Yetzer haRa is most dangerous when we give him a hechsher...
I think this article misses the whole point. The issue with his argument is that it’s just some vague effective altruist argument buttressed by some obscure cherry-picked source words that seem to say the same thing as him, as long as it’s appropriately isolated from context. Effective altruists make very distinct philosophical claims about the world and he never bothers to support those claims, choosing to pretend they are obvious, as is common for such type of claims. The reason to stick with our traditional sources is that they have an entirely different philosophy, so to make a claim within the context of Halacha, you must accept the premises of Halacha. Otherwise, you’re just another pompous arrogant effective altruist, sneering with your math equations and “data” how you have the perfect answer to questions that have been bothering humanity forever.
Footnote 12 - took me a minute to get it! Well done.
Really excellent!! I agree with almost everything. One point about your application of R Yehuda Hachasid - "The case there is where a gentile is vowing to kill one of the two, and there R. Yehuda Hachasid finds it praiseworthy for the am ha’aretz to offer himself as the sacrifice."
In the question of brain death it is the doctor that is committing murder - the donor is only offering himself as the sacrifice, no? (This cannot be said regarding his proof from the 2 men in the desert, which is different not only because it is only shev vaal taaseh, but as you pointed out, because no-one is being murdered.)
But don't get me wrong, I agree 100% that NS messed up royally in his analysis, which he has no business even trying to deal with to begin with. I also think a big problem with his piece is why stop at brain death? Why not every vegetative state patient, or terminally ill, or downs syndrome...sound familiar?
The major issue is not knowing what constitutes a major vs minor issue.