מַתְנִי׳ הָאוֹמֵר: ״עַל קַן צִיפּוֹר יַגִּיעוּ רַחֲמֶיךָ״, וְ״עַל טוֹב יִזָּכֵר שְׁמֶךָ״, ״מוֹדִים, מוֹדִים״ — מְשַׁתְּקִין אוֹתוֹ
״מוֹדִים, מוֹדִים״ מְשַׁתְּקִין אוֹתוֹ — מִשּׁוּם דְּמֶיחְזֵי כִּשְׁתֵּי רָשׁוּיוֹת. וְ״עַל טוֹב יִזָּכֵר שְׁמֶךָ״ נָמֵי, מַשְׁמַע עַל הַטּוֹבָה וְלֹא עַל הָרָעָה, וּתְנַן: חַיָּיב אָדָם לְבָרֵךְ עַל הָרָעָה כְּשֵׁם שֶׁמְּבָרֵךְ עַל הַטּוֹבָה. אֶלָּא ״עַל קַן צִפּוֹר יַגִּיעוּ רַחֲמֶיךָ״ מַאי טַעְמָא?
I am currently reading (listening to) Rabbi Dr Jonathan Sacks' book, "Not in my name" where he charges what he calls "pathological dualism" as being at the center of "altruistic evil" - that evil carried out, often through violence, in the name of a cause (often Religion). It is a marvelous book (not yet finished it, but the first half at least) and it touches on the issues raised here - linking the necessity to thank for the bad to the issue of dualism - since true monotheists recognise that G?d is the god who creates both - there is not a separate "רשות" (authority) who fights against G?d.
But like the Gemara, I am left wondering why the Bird's nest gets a mention. And the two answers the Gemara gives (raising the jealousy of other animals and encouraging finding a reason behind a law which has no reason) still do not satisfy me.
But like the Gemara, I am left wondering why the Bird's nest gets a mention. And the two answers the Gemara gives (raising the jealousy of other animals and encouraging finding a reason behind a law which has no reason) still do not satisfy me.
The mitzvah of שילוח הקן (sending away the mother bird before stealing her eggs) seems to be the mitzvah being referenced here, and the second reason of the Gemara (raising reasons for laws without reasons) does make sense, but still doesn't satisfy. Why can't we try and find reasons for laws without reasons? Are the rabbis afraid of people asking questions? Nothing could be further from the truth - the whole rabbinic edifice is built on the asking of questions. So nu?
I am going to assume that this example has been included with the other two because it relates to the same idea as the others - i.e. the denial of dualism and the embrace of monotheism. Asking G?d for mercy by using the example of the Bird's nest is an opening to dualism - how so?
We can assume that the idea is that in a prayer where one cites the bird's nest, one's logic would be, "if you have mercy on a bird, how can you not have mercy upon us - humans/the Jewish people - your children?" Surely this is the opposite of dualism - recognising that the G?d of the bird is also our G?d. The dualism is not within the image of G?d, but within the understanding of the place of humanity. If one uses the bird as an example and then makes a "קל וחומר" argument (one that states that if X, then surely Y), one creates a divide between humanity and the bird - implying that humans and the bird are not part of one creation.
What is the duality being attacked in this kind of prayer? - the duality of arrogance - the duality that places humanity in a completely separate category from birds. When we think that we are not just another part of nature, we begin down the road to a duality that creates a hierarchy. Our belief that we are above the animals in G?d's estimation is the ultimate hubris. Potentially this hubris - which encourages us to see the world around us, fauna and flora, as ours to be exploited will in fact be what leads to our fall. The climate crisis is the result of this hubris - this dualism - understanding ourselves as independent of the natural order. If only someone had silenced us when we first thought to turn the earth's nature into our own exploitable possession.
I am going to assume that this example has been included with the other two because it relates to the same idea as the others - i.e. the denial of dualism and the embrace of monotheism. Asking G?d for mercy by using the example of the Bird's nest is an opening to dualism - how so?
We can assume that the idea is that in a prayer where one cites the bird's nest, one's logic would be, "if you have mercy on a bird, how can you not have mercy upon us - humans/the Jewish people - your children?" Surely this is the opposite of dualism - recognising that the G?d of the bird is also our G?d. The dualism is not within the image of G?d, but within the understanding of the place of humanity. If one uses the bird as an example and then makes a "קל וחומר" argument (one that states that if X, then surely Y), one creates a divide between humanity and the bird - implying that humans and the bird are not part of one creation.
What is the duality being attacked in this kind of prayer? - the duality of arrogance - the duality that places humanity in a completely separate category from birds. When we think that we are not just another part of nature, we begin down the road to a duality that creates a hierarchy. Our belief that we are above the animals in G?d's estimation is the ultimate hubris. Potentially this hubris - which encourages us to see the world around us, fauna and flora, as ours to be exploited will in fact be what leads to our fall. The climate crisis is the result of this hubris - this dualism - understanding ourselves as independent of the natural order. If only someone had silenced us when we first thought to turn the earth's nature into our own exploitable possession.
No comments:
Post a Comment