This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Forbidden relationships in Judaism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 4 November 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
However, the concluding admin also stated:
To read the discussion so far about merging, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forbidden relationships in Judaism, further comments should be made below.
I'd like to point out that if no-one makes further comments about the merge, I'll do it myself, and without further guidance I won't be doing anything except basically almost entirely converting it to a redirect.
Newman Luke (
talk) 16:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I have merged the two articles. The result is definitely more complete than either of the two articles were before, but still needs to be completed in some sections. Debresser ( talk) 17:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Who is this Rabbi Eisenberg and how does he override a clear statement of the Shulchan Aruch? (Yes, I know the source rules. But there is a lot of nonsense out there.) Also see the main article, which also contradicts this. Mzk1 ( talk) 20:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
In correcting the list taken from Leviticus, I tried to stick to the literal meaning, leaving interpretation for afterwards. I note that the original had a step-sister. Step-sisters are permitted in Jewish law. I suppose someone interprets it this way because a sister is already mentioned; the Rabbis have their own interpretation. (I may have slightly gone against it in the list, but the end result is the same.) Looking at the main article, which is quite secular, I only see a Karatite view prohibiting a step-sister. Does anyone know where this is from? Mzk1 ( talk) 18:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
(Mostly to DeBresser) Regarding the last revert, I felt it important because people with the handicap might take offense; there are in fact several opinions as to what constitutes a cheresh (and possibly even a shoteh) today. The original was worse, "completely forbidden" - not only untrue but contradicted by its own source. (I can't believe I'm quoting the Jewish Encyclopedia. At least it wasn't the Jewish Virtual Library - you might as well quote someone's blog. There is a definite problem with the over-dependance on Internet sources.)
I would think "it should be noted", is not different from other things I have seen in Wikipedia, and certainly not in real encyclopedias. Do you have a better phrase, assuming I get a good source? I have some handicap in the area as I live in Haifa, but I have at least one idea. I thought about it and it was the best I could think of.
Regarding Sheniyot, I would not put a list, as I found the main article, and they claim there are various opinions; there may be truth to this, in spite of their angle. (I did make a very slight correction there.)
Do you think that I should check with you (no one else seems interested) before posting? I have no problem with your reverts, but I'm not sure you like what I'm trying to do. Mzk1 ( talk) 18:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
A couple of people have taken upon themselves to unilaterally (bilaterally) rewute the entire article to suit themselves, without any discussion at all.
Let's take an example:
"The more popular forms of modern Judaism - Reform, Progressive (known in the USA as Reconstructionist), and Liberal". All right, any statistics here? How are you counting? Are you arbitrarily putting different groups together? Is "Orthodox" only observant? (What if we applied that rule to Catholics?) We have about five, six million Jews here in Israel, almost all de facto Orthodox, whether or not they believe or observe.
Let's try another (leaving out that "in Later Judaism" is POV):
"In Orthodox Judaism, a form of Rabbinic Judaism which is now in the minority, some of the relationships forbade by the bible are regarded as such serious wickedness that one should be willing to die, rather than commit them[49];"
This is a statement in the Talmud, not some late opinion. I suppose you will say it was clarified later. So, then, Maimonidies, for example, practiced "Orthodox Judaismm a form of Rabbinic Judaism which is now in the minority", while Reconstructionist Judaism is a form of Rabbinic Judaism? All of these definitions are POV.
Do I want the traditional view to be the only one stated? No, but I want it to be clear so someone interested can find it, and I want some balance. Mzk1 ( talk) 18:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I recommend this page stay protected until a decent discussion takes place. Personally, I have spent hours researching small changes only to see one or two people rewrite it to suit their own personal prejudices.
Did the article need fixing? Yes. Should more non-traditional viewpoints be added? Yes. Should one or two people refuse to discuss anything and run roughshod over everyone else? I don't think so.
Can someone tell me where things go from here? Mzk1 ( talk) 18:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
“ | Wikipedia contributors are editors, not authors, and no one, no matter how skilled, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article....Examples of ownership behavior...."Get consensus before you make such huge changes.".... | ” |
“ | Get consensus before you make such huge changes. | ” |
“ | Revert. You're editing too much. Can you slow down?. | ” |
“ | address the topic and not the actions of the editors. | ” |
(To NL) If possible, I would like to write the article together. We have different sources and types of knowledge, and perhaps we can collaborate. I do not mean just us, but no-one else has seemed interested.
I should point out that the article is "in Judaism", not "in the Bible", or in "among the ancient Hebrews". Therefore, if you wish to include something, it should be something that, in context, is Judaism. Furthermore, Judaism is what is (or was), not what one thinks it should be.
One last thing. The Bible should not be used as a source unless the interpretation is clear and non-controversial, or unless one is stating that the literal meaning is given. Otherwise we have OR, as the Bible is a primary source. I suppose that would apply to the Talmud also, but I am not sure.
Following are my reasons for giving a prominent place to the traditional viewpoint:
1. It is the law of the land for the five to six million Jews of Israel, if they wish to get married here, excepting the small number of Karaites and Samaritans. Whether everyone likes it or not, this is a fact, and most people eventually do get married here. I suspect this is also true in the rest of the Middle East (Lebanon, for example) where there is no civil marriage.
2. It predominated in Jewish life for over a thousand years, to the point where the start is controversial. (I think it is telling that Josephus states that almost everyone followed the Pharisees, but we needn't go back that far.)
3. This specific topic is pretty clear within traditional Judaism, with little disagreement on the major issues. This is as opposed to opinions on earlier times, where all is basically speculation (the exception being the Karaites and perhaps the Samaritans).
4. Other viewpoints with a large following often start from the traditional viewpoint. In spite of attacks on the EJ and JE (encyclopedias) as being anti-traditional, the traditional view is given a prominent place there.
5. In spite of erosion, the traditional view is still one of the largest among practicing Jews, and an even larger practice (when they practice) according to it (see above). It is also the only one that is world-wide.
In order to discuss (assuming you wish to do that), it would help if I understood what you are talking about.
Who (what groups at what times) do you include within Orthodox Judaism? Within Rabbinic Judaism? Within Talmudic Judaism?
Thank you. Mzk1 ( talk) 20:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
One note on the opening paragraph. I do not see how the Karaite interpretation is prominent enough to put in the opening paragraph. Karaism is very small currently; furthermore, at various points and places in history, the Karaites did not call themselves Jews. I am not saying to leave it out of the article. Mzk1 ( talk) 20:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, if consensus is impossible, I suppose separate pages on traditional and other viewpoints are possible. I suspect that the laws of the State of Israel are at least as important as the sonic screwdriver. Mzk1 ( talk) 21:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I would like to speak for a moment about other viewpoints.
I am not clear on how relevant the Critical viewpoint is to Judaism, as opposed to Biblical study. It is relevant to the more recent denominations, provided they make use of it - but this has to be shown. Other than that, it does not appear relevant at least as far back as the Hasmoneans. Before that, the critical viewpoint (unlike the traditional) considers the Bible to be late and not necessarily either historical or universally followed. So exactly where does it impact on actual Judaism as believed or practiced? More specifically, for NL or others wishing to present this viewpoint, how long do you contend this sort of Judaism existed, and how widespread was it among the Jews? Would you even call it Judaism? I am not being ironic - I am asking.
Regarding the more recent denominations, I am not the one to add their viewpoints, but I welcome others to do so, so as to make the article complete. But it is kind of hard to determine what they are. Even if you have a resolution or ruling from the CCAR, this only applies to the U.S. Of course, this does not mean that an attempt should not be made. (This is as opposed to the traditional viewpoint, where there has been unaminity on most general issues of this topic for a long time.) Mzk1 ( talk) 21:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I would also like to make a point about the one issue we did have a discussion about, above. I fear I have forgotten Hanlon's Razor (modified), and assumed malice where the cause was lack of knowledge. The category of things that one gives up one's life for is called "yahoreg v'al ya'avor". This is so basic in Jadaism, that it is now an expression in modern secular Hebrew; my Moslem boss uses it. (Easy to provide a cite; just check a dictionary.) What I am saying is the the new editor does not have the background to describe the traditional viewpoint, just as I do not have the background to describe the non-traditional one. Thus the need for collaboration. Mzk1 ( talk) 09:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
NL, I don't know why you suddenly decided to respond, after all of this time. I saw on your page that there is a complaint against you; I have never had responses from you in their absence.
Be that as it may, it is difficult to know what your sources are if you don't cite them in the article. If I don't see a source, I have to assume you made it up.
The JE is useless for predominent view among Jews, because the composition of the Jewish community today is completely different.
The people in Israel are Jews; you said as much. They seldom go to a non-Orthodox synagogue or practice any non-Orthodox form of Judaism. They have agreed, for whatever reason, political expediency included, to allow the "Orthodox monopoly".
I don't know what else to say, because you are continually using straw-man arguments; responding to anything other than what I actually said. I said you are arbitarily combining different viewpoints to make your majority, and you responded by doing just that. You say that there is no proof that Josephus was <<exactly>> the same as Talmudic Judaism (who said that?) . Yet find me a source that Reform Jews the world over have the <<exact>> same view on any matter of Jewish law. I said the U.S. is not the world, Israel is at least as big, and you repeat your aguments as if the U.S. is the world - and claim I said Israel was! You used the term "practicing" for reform, yet where are your statistics on what percentage of any group are "practicing"? And where are your world-wide statistics on anything? And if numbers TODAY are so important, why mention the Karaites?
Regarding the Shulchan Aruch, it is a continuation of a tradition. Look at the Mishnah Torah and see if it is a different one. The precise rulings are irrelevant. (Besides, the S.A. is largely based on it. The Shulchan Aruch does what an encyclopedia like JE (but not Wikipedia) is supposed to do; it synthesises earlier sources. And then it is peer-reviewed by the various commentaries on the page, which quote other opinions. I do not quote it without checking every single one; you get weighted opinions.) If you understood your sources, would you refer Talmudic statements here to the Talmud, there to the Middle Ages, and there to Orthodoxy? How did you come up with strange formulations like the Talmud says a Perutah and the later Rabbis said at least as much? Is that actually in a source?
The bottom line is that I wanted to work together and you say My Way or the Highway. My attempt to start a discussion appears to have failed. Mzk1 ( talk) 02:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
(Does anybody use talk pages anymore?)
I see there is a new editor who is making some nice, organic fixes. I have some ideas for the page and would like to see what others think.
The main problem with the page (to me) is the mixing of Arayot and other relations in the header. I would like to put a header right under the intro called Arayot. This would have an explanation of what they are (the list in Lev.) and someting about terminology. Then a list of bullet points on what makes them unique, starting with the verse (Karet), and continuing through the Talmud (martyrdom, ability to kill the rapist), and then on (mamzer) and finally individual opinions (seconday prohibition being Biblical according the Maimonidies).
Then put Adultery, Incest, Niddah, etc. as subheadings.
I have a pretty good idea what to write, but I want to get the references together.
I would also like to modify the first paragraph to mention a little of the moral aspect (sanctity, from the text, Rashi, Maimonidies). This might be more controversial.
Any comments? Mzk1 ( talk) 20:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
"Religious intermarriage is forbidden in traditional Judaism." Is it allowed anywhere? I mean, officially? Debresser ( talk) 20:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I skimmed the article, and it referred to many kinds of sexual relations. But I didn't see any reference to sex that is not: adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, incest, rape, etc. Some people might call sex or physical intimacies "fornication", "impurity", sex outside of marriage, making out, petting, or something else. And there are also the topics of what constitutes sex or not, and whether or when masturbation is an issue. Are there separate articles for these? I at least didn't see any reference in this article to "fornication" or masturbation. I for one would be interested in Judaism views on these topics, but don't have knowledge expertise to add to the article. However, I do know that the Bible (Tanakh) refers to sex between unmarried men and women. However, if it is not coitus, does it affect one's status as a "virgin"? (which the Torah has laws regarding). The Bible (Tanakh, Torah) also refers to and permits both monogamy and polygamy (with a king not "multiplying wives" being referred to). Do other editors have knowledge of these various topics within Judaism? Thanks! Misty MH ( talk) 05:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
"One's wife's sister during one's wife's lifetime, even if since divorced (Leviticus 18:18)" How does this prohibition deals with Jacob marrying Rachel and her sister Leah ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.179.216.25 ( talk) 03:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any particular controversy here for a while. We all agree to accept all non-fringe viewpoints. Mzk1 ( talk) 19:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
There is much discussion about 4 opinions on the interpretation of the verse in Leviticus 18:22, However the actual verse itself (with it's translation) is missing. This makes it difficult for the reader to understand the opinions. I want to add both verses (literal precise translation) as an introduction to the 4 opinions. Due to all the discussions - I am first consulting the talk page. Caseeart ( talk) 02:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
This article, without being honest about the fact that it is doing so, equates Judaism with Orthodox Judaism. Millions of Jews, primarily though not exclusively in the United States, reject many tenets held by Orthodox Jews, and don't accept its holding itself out as being the only "genuine" Judaism. My modest attempts to improve the article in this regard were reverted by @debresser.
(If it isn't Orthodox Judaism, but rather Halakhic Judaism, or Rabbinic Judaism, or Chabad Judaism, or some other variety, my apologies. But the point remains.)
deisenbe ( talk) 22:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Forbidden relationships in Judaism. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Forbidden relationships in Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I added two verses from Leviticus related to the closeness of relations when it came to incest. I guess the Author of this article seems to think they can omit the key verse from this section of the Torah and begin reading after that point? I am not sure, but the Torah should be taken at it's fullness or shortsightedness is bound to happen. This section Leviticus 18 was my Haftorah so I've included some Talmud and Mishnah references as well as a book on Canaanite practices which discuss their incest to further back up my reasoning for continually adding Leviticus 18:6 in. If the author would require it I can continue to cite Jewish sources from the Talmud, Torah, Mishnah Torah, and other places as well as historical accounts of such prohibitions against inbreeding with genetic relatives? I can literally do this because there are literally mountains of writings that support my addition of this prohibition which has always been in place.
To be clear I wish to make sure my Haftorah portion isn't molested or portions omitted to allow for some depravity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heydan Seegil ( talk • contribs) 20:07, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
The Christian church does not recognize any marriage between Christians and Jews. Any spouse and children will need to convert to Theism. The interpretation of Ezra is the same for Christians. 95.91.214.178 ( talk) 04:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Forbidden relationships in Judaism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article was nominated for deletion on 4 November 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
However, the concluding admin also stated:
To read the discussion so far about merging, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forbidden relationships in Judaism, further comments should be made below.
I'd like to point out that if no-one makes further comments about the merge, I'll do it myself, and without further guidance I won't be doing anything except basically almost entirely converting it to a redirect.
Newman Luke (
talk) 16:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
I have merged the two articles. The result is definitely more complete than either of the two articles were before, but still needs to be completed in some sections. Debresser ( talk) 17:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Who is this Rabbi Eisenberg and how does he override a clear statement of the Shulchan Aruch? (Yes, I know the source rules. But there is a lot of nonsense out there.) Also see the main article, which also contradicts this. Mzk1 ( talk) 20:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
In correcting the list taken from Leviticus, I tried to stick to the literal meaning, leaving interpretation for afterwards. I note that the original had a step-sister. Step-sisters are permitted in Jewish law. I suppose someone interprets it this way because a sister is already mentioned; the Rabbis have their own interpretation. (I may have slightly gone against it in the list, but the end result is the same.) Looking at the main article, which is quite secular, I only see a Karatite view prohibiting a step-sister. Does anyone know where this is from? Mzk1 ( talk) 18:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
(Mostly to DeBresser) Regarding the last revert, I felt it important because people with the handicap might take offense; there are in fact several opinions as to what constitutes a cheresh (and possibly even a shoteh) today. The original was worse, "completely forbidden" - not only untrue but contradicted by its own source. (I can't believe I'm quoting the Jewish Encyclopedia. At least it wasn't the Jewish Virtual Library - you might as well quote someone's blog. There is a definite problem with the over-dependance on Internet sources.)
I would think "it should be noted", is not different from other things I have seen in Wikipedia, and certainly not in real encyclopedias. Do you have a better phrase, assuming I get a good source? I have some handicap in the area as I live in Haifa, but I have at least one idea. I thought about it and it was the best I could think of.
Regarding Sheniyot, I would not put a list, as I found the main article, and they claim there are various opinions; there may be truth to this, in spite of their angle. (I did make a very slight correction there.)
Do you think that I should check with you (no one else seems interested) before posting? I have no problem with your reverts, but I'm not sure you like what I'm trying to do. Mzk1 ( talk) 18:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
A couple of people have taken upon themselves to unilaterally (bilaterally) rewute the entire article to suit themselves, without any discussion at all.
Let's take an example:
"The more popular forms of modern Judaism - Reform, Progressive (known in the USA as Reconstructionist), and Liberal". All right, any statistics here? How are you counting? Are you arbitrarily putting different groups together? Is "Orthodox" only observant? (What if we applied that rule to Catholics?) We have about five, six million Jews here in Israel, almost all de facto Orthodox, whether or not they believe or observe.
Let's try another (leaving out that "in Later Judaism" is POV):
"In Orthodox Judaism, a form of Rabbinic Judaism which is now in the minority, some of the relationships forbade by the bible are regarded as such serious wickedness that one should be willing to die, rather than commit them[49];"
This is a statement in the Talmud, not some late opinion. I suppose you will say it was clarified later. So, then, Maimonidies, for example, practiced "Orthodox Judaismm a form of Rabbinic Judaism which is now in the minority", while Reconstructionist Judaism is a form of Rabbinic Judaism? All of these definitions are POV.
Do I want the traditional view to be the only one stated? No, but I want it to be clear so someone interested can find it, and I want some balance. Mzk1 ( talk) 18:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I recommend this page stay protected until a decent discussion takes place. Personally, I have spent hours researching small changes only to see one or two people rewrite it to suit their own personal prejudices.
Did the article need fixing? Yes. Should more non-traditional viewpoints be added? Yes. Should one or two people refuse to discuss anything and run roughshod over everyone else? I don't think so.
Can someone tell me where things go from here? Mzk1 ( talk) 18:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
“ | Wikipedia contributors are editors, not authors, and no one, no matter how skilled, has the right to act as if they are the owner of a particular article....Examples of ownership behavior...."Get consensus before you make such huge changes.".... | ” |
“ | Get consensus before you make such huge changes. | ” |
“ | Revert. You're editing too much. Can you slow down?. | ” |
“ | address the topic and not the actions of the editors. | ” |
(To NL) If possible, I would like to write the article together. We have different sources and types of knowledge, and perhaps we can collaborate. I do not mean just us, but no-one else has seemed interested.
I should point out that the article is "in Judaism", not "in the Bible", or in "among the ancient Hebrews". Therefore, if you wish to include something, it should be something that, in context, is Judaism. Furthermore, Judaism is what is (or was), not what one thinks it should be.
One last thing. The Bible should not be used as a source unless the interpretation is clear and non-controversial, or unless one is stating that the literal meaning is given. Otherwise we have OR, as the Bible is a primary source. I suppose that would apply to the Talmud also, but I am not sure.
Following are my reasons for giving a prominent place to the traditional viewpoint:
1. It is the law of the land for the five to six million Jews of Israel, if they wish to get married here, excepting the small number of Karaites and Samaritans. Whether everyone likes it or not, this is a fact, and most people eventually do get married here. I suspect this is also true in the rest of the Middle East (Lebanon, for example) where there is no civil marriage.
2. It predominated in Jewish life for over a thousand years, to the point where the start is controversial. (I think it is telling that Josephus states that almost everyone followed the Pharisees, but we needn't go back that far.)
3. This specific topic is pretty clear within traditional Judaism, with little disagreement on the major issues. This is as opposed to opinions on earlier times, where all is basically speculation (the exception being the Karaites and perhaps the Samaritans).
4. Other viewpoints with a large following often start from the traditional viewpoint. In spite of attacks on the EJ and JE (encyclopedias) as being anti-traditional, the traditional view is given a prominent place there.
5. In spite of erosion, the traditional view is still one of the largest among practicing Jews, and an even larger practice (when they practice) according to it (see above). It is also the only one that is world-wide.
In order to discuss (assuming you wish to do that), it would help if I understood what you are talking about.
Who (what groups at what times) do you include within Orthodox Judaism? Within Rabbinic Judaism? Within Talmudic Judaism?
Thank you. Mzk1 ( talk) 20:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
One note on the opening paragraph. I do not see how the Karaite interpretation is prominent enough to put in the opening paragraph. Karaism is very small currently; furthermore, at various points and places in history, the Karaites did not call themselves Jews. I am not saying to leave it out of the article. Mzk1 ( talk) 20:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, if consensus is impossible, I suppose separate pages on traditional and other viewpoints are possible. I suspect that the laws of the State of Israel are at least as important as the sonic screwdriver. Mzk1 ( talk) 21:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I would like to speak for a moment about other viewpoints.
I am not clear on how relevant the Critical viewpoint is to Judaism, as opposed to Biblical study. It is relevant to the more recent denominations, provided they make use of it - but this has to be shown. Other than that, it does not appear relevant at least as far back as the Hasmoneans. Before that, the critical viewpoint (unlike the traditional) considers the Bible to be late and not necessarily either historical or universally followed. So exactly where does it impact on actual Judaism as believed or practiced? More specifically, for NL or others wishing to present this viewpoint, how long do you contend this sort of Judaism existed, and how widespread was it among the Jews? Would you even call it Judaism? I am not being ironic - I am asking.
Regarding the more recent denominations, I am not the one to add their viewpoints, but I welcome others to do so, so as to make the article complete. But it is kind of hard to determine what they are. Even if you have a resolution or ruling from the CCAR, this only applies to the U.S. Of course, this does not mean that an attempt should not be made. (This is as opposed to the traditional viewpoint, where there has been unaminity on most general issues of this topic for a long time.) Mzk1 ( talk) 21:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I would also like to make a point about the one issue we did have a discussion about, above. I fear I have forgotten Hanlon's Razor (modified), and assumed malice where the cause was lack of knowledge. The category of things that one gives up one's life for is called "yahoreg v'al ya'avor". This is so basic in Jadaism, that it is now an expression in modern secular Hebrew; my Moslem boss uses it. (Easy to provide a cite; just check a dictionary.) What I am saying is the the new editor does not have the background to describe the traditional viewpoint, just as I do not have the background to describe the non-traditional one. Thus the need for collaboration. Mzk1 ( talk) 09:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
NL, I don't know why you suddenly decided to respond, after all of this time. I saw on your page that there is a complaint against you; I have never had responses from you in their absence.
Be that as it may, it is difficult to know what your sources are if you don't cite them in the article. If I don't see a source, I have to assume you made it up.
The JE is useless for predominent view among Jews, because the composition of the Jewish community today is completely different.
The people in Israel are Jews; you said as much. They seldom go to a non-Orthodox synagogue or practice any non-Orthodox form of Judaism. They have agreed, for whatever reason, political expediency included, to allow the "Orthodox monopoly".
I don't know what else to say, because you are continually using straw-man arguments; responding to anything other than what I actually said. I said you are arbitarily combining different viewpoints to make your majority, and you responded by doing just that. You say that there is no proof that Josephus was <<exactly>> the same as Talmudic Judaism (who said that?) . Yet find me a source that Reform Jews the world over have the <<exact>> same view on any matter of Jewish law. I said the U.S. is not the world, Israel is at least as big, and you repeat your aguments as if the U.S. is the world - and claim I said Israel was! You used the term "practicing" for reform, yet where are your statistics on what percentage of any group are "practicing"? And where are your world-wide statistics on anything? And if numbers TODAY are so important, why mention the Karaites?
Regarding the Shulchan Aruch, it is a continuation of a tradition. Look at the Mishnah Torah and see if it is a different one. The precise rulings are irrelevant. (Besides, the S.A. is largely based on it. The Shulchan Aruch does what an encyclopedia like JE (but not Wikipedia) is supposed to do; it synthesises earlier sources. And then it is peer-reviewed by the various commentaries on the page, which quote other opinions. I do not quote it without checking every single one; you get weighted opinions.) If you understood your sources, would you refer Talmudic statements here to the Talmud, there to the Middle Ages, and there to Orthodoxy? How did you come up with strange formulations like the Talmud says a Perutah and the later Rabbis said at least as much? Is that actually in a source?
The bottom line is that I wanted to work together and you say My Way or the Highway. My attempt to start a discussion appears to have failed. Mzk1 ( talk) 02:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
(Does anybody use talk pages anymore?)
I see there is a new editor who is making some nice, organic fixes. I have some ideas for the page and would like to see what others think.
The main problem with the page (to me) is the mixing of Arayot and other relations in the header. I would like to put a header right under the intro called Arayot. This would have an explanation of what they are (the list in Lev.) and someting about terminology. Then a list of bullet points on what makes them unique, starting with the verse (Karet), and continuing through the Talmud (martyrdom, ability to kill the rapist), and then on (mamzer) and finally individual opinions (seconday prohibition being Biblical according the Maimonidies).
Then put Adultery, Incest, Niddah, etc. as subheadings.
I have a pretty good idea what to write, but I want to get the references together.
I would also like to modify the first paragraph to mention a little of the moral aspect (sanctity, from the text, Rashi, Maimonidies). This might be more controversial.
Any comments? Mzk1 ( talk) 20:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
"Religious intermarriage is forbidden in traditional Judaism." Is it allowed anywhere? I mean, officially? Debresser ( talk) 20:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I skimmed the article, and it referred to many kinds of sexual relations. But I didn't see any reference to sex that is not: adultery, homosexuality, bestiality, incest, rape, etc. Some people might call sex or physical intimacies "fornication", "impurity", sex outside of marriage, making out, petting, or something else. And there are also the topics of what constitutes sex or not, and whether or when masturbation is an issue. Are there separate articles for these? I at least didn't see any reference in this article to "fornication" or masturbation. I for one would be interested in Judaism views on these topics, but don't have knowledge expertise to add to the article. However, I do know that the Bible (Tanakh) refers to sex between unmarried men and women. However, if it is not coitus, does it affect one's status as a "virgin"? (which the Torah has laws regarding). The Bible (Tanakh, Torah) also refers to and permits both monogamy and polygamy (with a king not "multiplying wives" being referred to). Do other editors have knowledge of these various topics within Judaism? Thanks! Misty MH ( talk) 05:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
"One's wife's sister during one's wife's lifetime, even if since divorced (Leviticus 18:18)" How does this prohibition deals with Jacob marrying Rachel and her sister Leah ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.179.216.25 ( talk) 03:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any particular controversy here for a while. We all agree to accept all non-fringe viewpoints. Mzk1 ( talk) 19:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
There is much discussion about 4 opinions on the interpretation of the verse in Leviticus 18:22, However the actual verse itself (with it's translation) is missing. This makes it difficult for the reader to understand the opinions. I want to add both verses (literal precise translation) as an introduction to the 4 opinions. Due to all the discussions - I am first consulting the talk page. Caseeart ( talk) 02:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
This article, without being honest about the fact that it is doing so, equates Judaism with Orthodox Judaism. Millions of Jews, primarily though not exclusively in the United States, reject many tenets held by Orthodox Jews, and don't accept its holding itself out as being the only "genuine" Judaism. My modest attempts to improve the article in this regard were reverted by @debresser.
(If it isn't Orthodox Judaism, but rather Halakhic Judaism, or Rabbinic Judaism, or Chabad Judaism, or some other variety, my apologies. But the point remains.)
deisenbe ( talk) 22:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Forbidden relationships in Judaism. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Forbidden relationships in Judaism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:49, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
I added two verses from Leviticus related to the closeness of relations when it came to incest. I guess the Author of this article seems to think they can omit the key verse from this section of the Torah and begin reading after that point? I am not sure, but the Torah should be taken at it's fullness or shortsightedness is bound to happen. This section Leviticus 18 was my Haftorah so I've included some Talmud and Mishnah references as well as a book on Canaanite practices which discuss their incest to further back up my reasoning for continually adding Leviticus 18:6 in. If the author would require it I can continue to cite Jewish sources from the Talmud, Torah, Mishnah Torah, and other places as well as historical accounts of such prohibitions against inbreeding with genetic relatives? I can literally do this because there are literally mountains of writings that support my addition of this prohibition which has always been in place.
To be clear I wish to make sure my Haftorah portion isn't molested or portions omitted to allow for some depravity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heydan Seegil ( talk • contribs) 20:07, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
The Christian church does not recognize any marriage between Christians and Jews. Any spouse and children will need to convert to Theism. The interpretation of Ezra is the same for Christians. 95.91.214.178 ( talk) 04:32, 23 May 2022 (UTC)