This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
The page shows a picture of the Menorah, as being a symbol of Judaism, but then points out that it isn't a truly "kosher" Menorah. So what's the point in putting it there? Was it too difficult to find an image of a "Kosher" Menorah? Loomis51 16:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I am removing the "unkoshe" comment hich I believe is wrong. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Two things distinguish Judaism from the other religions that existed when it first developed.
First, it was monotheistic. The significance of this belief is not so much the denial of other gods; although this element is fundamental to Rabbinic Judaism, according to most critical Bible scholars the Torah often implies that the early Israelites accepted the existence of other gods. Rather, the significance lies in that Judaism holds that God created and cares about people. In polythestic religions, humankind is often created by accident, and the gods are primarily concerned with their relations with other gods, not with people.
Second, the Torah specifies a number of laws to be followed by the Children of Israel. Other religions at the time were characterized by temples in which priests would worship their gods through sacrifice. The Children of Israel similarly had a temple, priests, and made sacrifices -— but these were not the sole means of worshipping God. In comparison to other religions, Judaism elevates everyday life to the level of a temple, and worships God through everyday actions.
By the Hellenic period, most Jews had come to believe that their God was the only God (and thus, the God of everyone), and that the record of His revelation (the Torah) contained within it universal truths. This attitude may reflect growing Gentile interest in Judaism (some Greeks and Romans considered the Jews a most "philosophical" people because of their belief in a God that cannot be represented visually), and growing Jewish interest in Greek philosophy, which sought to establish universal truths.
Jews began to grapple with the tension between the particularism of their claim that only Jews were required to obey the Torah, and the universalism of their claim that the Torah contained universal truths. The result is a set of beliefs and practices concerning both identity, ethics, one's relation to nature, and one's relation to God, that privilege "difference" -— the difference between Jews and non-Jews; the differences between locally variable ways of practicing Judaism; a close attention to different meanings of words when interpreting texts; attempts to encode different points of view within texts, and a relative indifference to creed and dogma.
Ezra, you cannot delete material just because you do not agree with it. It is true that critical scholars have a different view than Orthodox Jews. The paragraphs you do not like specify that they reflect the view of critical scholars. If you want to add the Orthodox view, of course you can do that (as long as you specify whose view it is). But do not delete stuff you don't like. Even the Rabbis zl included in the Talmud views they disagreed with. Stop desecrating their memory. Slrubenstein -- Ezra Wax 05:08, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Slr: I am not complaining that I don't agree with the material, I am complaining that it is very one sided. It is not redeemable by adding another view, because there is no reason to add conflicting views into the introdcution. The whole introduction ought to be deleted as it is very difficult to say something that will be agreed to by everyone. All the points must be made where there is room to cover them more fully. How can you put the paragraphs back in when they specifically denigrate "Rabbinical Judaism" by saying that the Rabbis couldn't learn a pasuk of Chumash as well as some secular historian? It is your responsibility to fix the paragraphs before you put them back. Not my responsibility. -- Ezra Wax 00:32, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Ezra, I don't think I ever said the Rabbis can't learn a pasuk of Chumash as well as a secular historian. At most, I believe that they read pasuks differently, for different purposes. Where did I say they can't read as well? Slrubenstein
Has anybody here read "The Gifts of the Jews" by Thomas Cahill? He discusses the role of Jewish thought as revolutionary in the context of the ancient world because Abraham introduced the first recorded attempt to set life in terms of a linear narrative-- the notion of religious belief as a story. At this time, the rest of the world had suspended their faiths into neverending calendars which reiterated through predestined cycles and tracked the repetitive machinations of ever-static gods, divorced from time and space. Our religion was the first to weave life in the heavens and life on earth into one continuous and forward-looking thread with a definite beginning and a definite end. At any rate, I think the book (specifically the first third or so) will help clear up some of the snags up above, because it puts the advent of monotheism and all its theological implications in context with the beliefs of the time. That said, I have to say that this article is very well written. It is clear and even-handed, and I want to give a big yasher koach to all of you. -- O.
In comparison to other religions, Judaism is not primarily concerned with an afterlife, tending to elevate everyday life to the level of a temple, and worshipping God through the spectrum of everyday life and actions instead.
RK - since you removed this without preliminary discussion on the talk page, I have put it back in without discussion either. Dovi 12:05, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
To those who are mourning and fasting today - may it be meaningful (and easy). May we be comforted along with Jerusalem. Dovi 12:07, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
A highly stuctured short list like the present one is entirely appropriate in this context. It is (I repeat) clear and concise, very useful, and of central importance to the main article. Precisely for length reasons, there are other sections of the main article that should be shortened, spun off, or even converted to similar structured lists (e.g. "clergy"). And since it is the main article, those changes should be discussed in advance. Dovi 03:50, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
I changed "Traditional view" back to Rabbinical view." Here is why: "traditional" is vague and too broad. Most critical scholars now understand "tradition" to mean "of recent invention," which I am sure is not what Ezra meant. Conversely, others think "traditional" means "from time immemorial," which does not apply to this account. Ezra, as far as I can tell, is summing up exactly what he said -- Rabbinic views (i.e. views that came emerged during the Rabbinic period). There is no evidence that Jews in other periods ascribed to all of these beliefs.
That said I still have problems with Ezara's work. I accept and respect his insistance that views other than those of critical historians be included. I have no objection to including a "Rabbinic view." It is just that I don't think that What Ezra wrote really "introduces" the rest of the article. I think it is more an attempt to summarize majore Rabbinic beliefs. I am not saying the whole thing needs to be rewritten but I encourage Ezra or others to edit it to make it tighter and lead more effectively into the article. Slrubenstein
---
To Jayjg and all concerned: I have removed Ezra's sermon for three reasons:
This introduction keeps getting renamed the "critical historical view", as if all of it was somehow at odds with the teachings of classical rabbinic Judaism. That is not so! Most (not all, see below) of this text is not only comptabible with classical rabbinic Judaism, but is explicitly taught by many Orthodox rabbis. RK 02:49, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
Why is it that the Yiddish Wikipedia has only 14 articles, but one of them is on gefiltefish, while we have no articles on gefiltefish out of our over 350000 articles? What's up with that? gefiltefish yi:געפילטעפיש - node
Mark, it has to do with cultural obsessions. To Yiddish-speakers, gefilte fish must be one of the fourteen most important things in the world, ahead of George W. Bush and John F. Kerry. :-) JFW | T@lk 00:10, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yoshia, please bring proposed changes to the Karaite section here first. Thanks. Jayjg 05:40, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
While not considered a form of Judaism Talmidaism should be listed at least in passing, under a see also or whatever. The section I added was very NPOV and while not perfect should not have been reverted. Jayjg state your biases please. -- metta, The Sunborn ☸ 16:42, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hello all... i'm not a jewish person but have a great deal of interest in both Israel & Judaism, and have doubts as to the meaning of "sephardic jew"
Wikipedia & other i-net resources have given me the definition most of you will know (from Iberian peninsula, emigrating to the mediteranean region, etc...) but what raised my doubts is something else.
I recently saw a documentary which claimed that Sephardic jews originated from a tribe in a land adjacent to israel (in the north, though i forgot its ancient name). The king/leader of this tribe was deeply impressed with his jewish neighbours and converted himself, as well as all his people, to judaism...
I can find nothing to back this up, and would love any imput you're wishing to provide..
Thank you all,
Hayden
Mmm.... that's kind of backwards. The Sephardics, being those who were more local to the Holy Land, are probably closer to the original. The reference you seem to have is probably to the Khazars, a tribe who converted to Judaism and became part of the Ashkenazik, or Northern European branch of the religion, from whom most American Jews are descended. I'll let you search the details for yourself, the Web is full of all kinds of stuff on the topic, some reliable, some insane; I couldn't hope to pick out an objectively reliable selection. I will point out, however, that there is genetic evidence linking Ashkenazic Jews to Shephardic Jews, and both groups to the residents of the Arabic peninsula; most closely, ironically but not unexpectedly, to the Palestinians.
Gzuckier 15:35, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Olve & Gzuckier: Thank you for the insight... i will look into some of the points you made... and i definitely agree with you on one basic point Olve - reality is always more complicated than people make it out to be... especially on television.
The article Zoroastrianism claims that Zoroastrianism was an influence on the development on Judaism, but this article has nothing to say on the matter. What gives? Who's right?
It is more of an influence on the Essenes and Christianity (eschatology, soteriology, satan, heaven, hell, purgatory, angels, .. the list goes on forever). However, it is suggested that before the Babylonian exile the Jews were more henotheistic than strictly monotheistic (the same kind of criticism exists in the dualism of Zoroastrianism, even though it is primarily monotheistic in nature as well), and that sheol, for instance, was replaced with an eternal soul and an afterlife depending on your conduct in life. But since Moses and Zarathushtra were contemporaries, any ancient pre-Daniel influence would have been mutual, if occurring at all. And it was my understanding that the משיח if not just 'an anointed one' was a savior of the Jewish people that would deliver them from the Romans (as Moses led his people from bondage), and not a cosmic world savior like the Zoroastrian Saoshyant whom is prophesized to be announced by a star, be born of a virgin, have a halo, perform miracles, and resurrect the dead and renovate the world at the Day of Judgement (Frashegird). Last time I was at the Zoroastrian article talk page there was dispute between the consensus of us and an Evangelical or two. I gave it up, and am instead using my time productively writing Zoroastrian related articles, due to the complete dearth thereof. If I have made myself sound like an ignorant gentile, that's 'cause I am! I came here wanting to ask about the eternal flame of the temple (?) in Judaism because of one of the articles I'm currently writing. And lo and behold, this serendipitous question. Zoroastrianism is sorta my forte, to put it lightly. Please ask me anything you want to know, and teach me what you know! I can give internet resources, book resources, and dig up those good ol' Bible (or Tanakh in this case) passages (if I can remember which source has which reference!). Khirad talk
I think alphabetical is the most neutral way to list them. However, if they're going to be listed by size (as a recent edit changed it), I'll believe that Orthodox is the largest in the Diaspora (since it accounts for the majority of active Jews outside of Israel and North America), but Reform is larger than Conservative in the US according to the latest NJPS, and the US accounts for the majority of Reform/Conservative Jews, so it's reasonable to say that Reform is larger than Conservative in the Diaspora as a whole. Dreyfus 23:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi, welcome the new Wikipedia {{Judaism-stub}} Template:Judaism-stub [1]. There is also a new {{Israel-stub}} Template:Israel-stub [2]. Please use them when coming across relevant "stub" articles. Best wishes, IZAK 14:26, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Isn't the star of david normally blue? Masterhomer 07:50, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi everybody. I'm wondering if it wouldn't be better to put the star under Jew as it is more a cultural symbol than a religious symbol. Even the Menorah should be put there as in the way it is being presented here it is also a cultural and not religious symbol. Although I must admit that I am not entirely comfortable with it being there either. I would put it under an article on Jewish culture or Jewish nationalism. Ezra Wax 04:24, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As a religious Jew I would like to confirm that the menorah is the official symbol of Judaism. The Star of David is the symbol of israel, not of the religion as a whole, and in fact it's origin is not really known. I've always assumed it was a coat of arms or a crest. But I don't know where it originated, and I don't think anyone does.
Gringo300 09:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I have added substantial text to the The_names_of_God_in_Judaism and need some help in checking the text for accuracy. Any help anyone can offer will be much appreciated. -- Zappaz 17:16, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As a religious Jew I would like to point out an error. Abraham was NOT a jew. This subject has a huge discussion in the talmud. And the final answer is that he was not a jew. All jews became jewish at the giving of the torah at mount sinai. That event "started" the jewish religion. Everyone present (irregardless of descent, and there were many who didn't descend from abraham) became jewish at that moment.
Additionally Abraham can not be the first jew because it decends via the mother - and if Sarah was a jew then what about eysav (the other son)?
A better way to write this is:
Judaism traces its origin to Abraham, who was the first to recognise a monotheistic god.
I stand corrected, I am glad you checked the source. I do not think that the article even mentions matrilineality — but if someone ever thought it should be discussed, certainly a sentence like "Although Haredim (or Orthodox Jews) believe that Judaism is passed down through the mother's line, historian Shaye Cohen has argued that this belief did not emerge until the Second Temple period" or something like that. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Although I do not believe that the matrilineal rule is based in the Tanach, I do not believe that makes the Tannaim or the Amoraim disingenuous. As critical scholars of the Talmud (e.g. Jacob Neusner) have observed, the sages' understanding of the Oral Law is complex and to modern ears even hopelessly paradoxical. But that does not mean that they were intentionally deceiving or misleading themselves or their audience. They were not being disingenuous, they were being earnest and sincere working within a theology, epistemology, and hermeneutics that most of us do not share today, but that made perfect sense to them. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I've read the same thing on more or less reliable mainstream sources, not revisionism type sources, the specifics of which I can't remember; that there is archaeological evidence of ancient settlements around Hebron and Nablus that are somehow identified as the Hebrews (i.e., Abraham's tribe and Isaac's) and there is also archaeological evidence of a large influx of people some time later (i.e. the 12 tribes arrive from Egypt) which identify themselves with those two original tribes, but there is in fact no archaeological evidence at all of the exile to Egypt, the presence of Hebrews in Egypt, or, by extension, any actual linkage of the group 'returning from exile' with the original two settlements other than their claim to be so. However I agree that this info/speculation doesn't fit well in the intro, and maybe not even in this article unless there is some general archaeological discussion I haven't noticed. Gzuckier 05:53, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I gather we don't have a WikiProject on Judaism, so I thought I'd ask here for help on Alisha Ben Abuyah. I did at least a fair job of adapting the Jewish Encyclopedia article, and added information about the Jacob Gordin play. This could all use review by someone more knowledgable than I (I'm from an utterly secular background). I have some specific questions at Talk:Alisha Ben Abuyah, mostly about citing the Mishnah, but there is more.
Do we have an article anywhere (main space or Wikipedia space) about citing Talmudic works? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:24, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
Are we sure it isn't Elisha? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:09, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I changed it to Elisha. "Alisha" is just wrong. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:23, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In the historical context of this article, is it really appropriate to link "Persia" to Iran? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:29, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
Hi & sorry for being a bit offtopic, but would someone please check the article about the
synagogue in my hometown both for English grammar and from Jewish point of view? thanks –
Alensha 21:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) Moved it to the wikiproject Judaism
Alensha 21:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"During this stretch of time, Jews have experienced slavery, anarchic self-government, theocratic self-government, conquest, occupation, and exile; ... " Could someone please add more information about this "anarchic self-government"? Guaka 00:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
According to both traditional Jews and critical historical scholars, a number of ideas distinguish Judaism from the other religions that existed when it first developed. One characteristic was monotheism. The significance of this idea lies in that Judaism holds that God created, and cares about, humankind. In polytheistic religions, humankind is often created by accident, and the gods are primarily concerned with their relations with other gods, not with people.
While such an association between monotheism and divine concern (and the corresponding association between polytheism and lack of divine concern) is found in some belief systems, there is no intrinsic connection. Aristotle, for example, thought that the Creator (note the monotheism) created the world but doesn't sustain it. Friedrich Nietzsche also believed in a Creator who left the universe to function for itself. By contrast, many polytheistic religions believed/believe in personal, family, and/or national "guardian" gods. This paragraph needs to be revamped - posthaste! HKT 2:44, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Someone keeps deleting the section on Jewish philosophy. If this person doesn't give a reasonable explanation, we will have to consider him/her a vandal. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
I should explain that the actions of user 62.253.64.14 follow from a debate on the Zoroastrianism page, which was subjected to a Disputed Neutrality notice because of the presence of well-known arguments about the influence of Zoroastrianism on the development of Judaism. These, along with some uncontroversial statements, were declared to be "blatant POV" by one editor. Several users including the estimable Slrubenstein insisted that these statements must be backed up by references, or were unacceptable. In the discussion I pointed out that many disputable claims about the early history of Judaism were equally unsupported. It was suggested that I could simply demand references or alterations in such cases. Though I didn't say so, I thought it far more likely that any such a request would simply be reverted, because of the problem of systemic bias. It seems that user 62.253.64.14 has decided to make the experiment. And by the way, he isn't an anonymous me. Paul B 23:24, 17 June 2005 (UTC)
As to Zoroastrianism, I certainly made it clear that it should be mentioned in this article; the only question is, what about it, and using what sources. I could add information myself on the influence of Zoroastrianism, though only from books that are relying on other people's research. Either way, it should be sourced. As you Paul's childish tit-for-tat "well, there are statements about Judaism that don't have citations" I really wish he would stop interpreting my response as a sign of systematic bias and instead see it as serious and genuine: point out which sentences, specifically, and if among us contributors we can't find a source, we will take it out. This is one of the major ways Wikipedia articles evolve. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
There is no mention here, of the Ethiopian Jews, whose religious practices are sometimes quite "alien" to what is discussed in this article. Anyone know enough to write something about it? Tomer TALK July 8, 2005 16:19 (UTC)
The recent edit by 200.11.242.33 and reverted by Pharos, was a copyvio, apparently copied from here. Paul August ☎ 20:53, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Some of you (even non-Yiddish speakers) might be interested in my half-baked plan to revitalize the moribund (only 121 articles) Yiddish Wikipedia. Please see my idea at Talk:Yiddish_language#Yiddish_Wikipedia, and thanks.-- Pharos 05:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
(1) I say this borders on trivia, one such study is almost certainly contestable, and it does not belong in an article on the religion, though I guess it does (with citation, missing here) at Kashrut. (2) If someone decides it belongs here, I would guess that "John Hopkins" here refers to "Johns Hopkins. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:13, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Please visit Talk:Brit-dam and add your two-cents.
— <TALK JNDRLINE TALK> 30 August 2005
I'm going to assume that Jordain's inserting "BC/AD" into this article, against clear consensus not to use that terminology on topics about Judaism, was not a deliberate act of religious hostility. I have reverted it. If the change is repeated, I will presume that my assumption of good faith was misplaced. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Hello, I've been working on the "Meditation" entry, and I would like to request some knowledgable person(s) to try to summarize "Jewish meditation" in a few sentences. (Or if you have the energy, do a whole new entry and then link to that.)
For instance, is there some word or words in Hebrew that correspond to "meditation"? What types are there, and how are they conceived? What groups within Judaism practice them? Etc.
Thank you, --Dawud
Thank you! I'll look for the book, and in the meantime post this.
Call me old school, but the only people who can study Kabbalah (aside from critical scholars), and the only ones who can practice it, must be 40 year-old married Talmud scholars. Anyone who does not fit those minimum qualifications is not practicing Kabbalah, no matter what they say. If you are interested in how Kabbalah can and has been popularized (so that its core theological elements, and some practices, are present though not such that anyone would call it Kabbalah), then look to Hassidic Judaism. That is as close to Kabbalah for the masses as one can get — so far. There is, if this is something you are really interested in, a book called 8 1/2 Mystics that is fairly accessible. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
A contemporary Hebrew dictionary provides two words for "meditate." The intransitive verb is hey resh hey resh (which can also be translated as "to think"), and the transitive verb is shin kuf lamed (which can also mean "to weigh, to consider" -- it is the same root as the one for money, since money is "measured," you know, like, worth its weight in gold). How people use the words and what they really mean is another thing. I would recommend as sources Kaplan's book, Buber's book on Hasidism, and Eight and a Half Mystics as basic sources on Jewish meditation. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Even the Messianic Judaism page states that the Jewish people do not consider Messianic Judaism as a denomination of Judaism. Since the Messianic Judaism movement was started by Christians and holds that Jesus is/was the messiah, it cannot logically be a demonination of Judaism. Judaism holds that the messiah has not come yet - how in the world could Messianic Judaism be a branch of a religion that does not accept that a messiah has arrived yet?
Messianic Judaism is a form of Christianity (because it accepts Jesus as the messiah) that also accepts Jewish practices (i.e. observance of the Jewish Sabbath) as part of their doctrine.
I removed the Messianic Judaism link because it is NOT a Jewish movement.
See the pages on Jewish Movements and Messianic Judaism.
70.250.173.164 anonymous
I couldn't find this on the Jews for Jesus website. Their view of Jewish law seems identical with that of Evangelical Christianity (see http://www.jewsforjesus.org/publications/newsletter/1989_07/liberty for a salient article), but there might well be a tendency toward circumcision which is rooted socially rather than theologically. Half of all American men are circumcised anyway, so one would imagine the pressures in a group like that to be even higher. Or, you could ask on the Jews for Jesus discussion board. --Dawud
Jews for jesus is not the only messianic jewish denomination. They are a branch or denomination of Judaism from the messianic point of view. I am one myself. Jews have varying views on what makes one a jew, so your arguments are invalid about circumcission and mothership. Some jews don't hold to the maternal but the paternal line. Some messianic jews believe you must circumcise to be a jew some don't. Some, what you would call authentic jews would say you have to keep all the laws and some would not. ( J. D. Hunt 09:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC))
Jews and christians trace jewishness, originally, through the father's line to abraham. They, both also, link the messiah to king david through the father's line. so, by birth and through christ they believe they and christianity are jewish. just cause most don't believe this don't make it not true. its messiannic POV vs Treditional jews POV. ( J. D. Hunt 09:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC))
It just occurred to me that there are "messianic Jews" (i.e. self-identifying Jews who believe the messiah has already come) who recognize someone other than Jesus as the messiah. What about the followers of that Lubavitcher rebbe, Menachem Schneerson? And Shabbatai Zevi? (Whose followers existed as a group until the twentieth century.) Schneerson observed Jewish law, Zevi converted to Islam. --Dawud
So, Jdhunt, you are saying that Jews are Jews because they are descended from Abraham (presumably through Isaac and then Jacob), whether they believe in the Talmud or the New Testament; whether they believe Jesus was the messiah or not. Okay, I assume this is your personal position, and that is fine. Of course, our articles cannot be based on original research or represent our own views. So what we really need to know is, are there any significant or major scholars or organizations that express this view in a reputable verifiable source. Similalrly, we need to know if any major Jewish organization takes this position. If no major Jewish organization takes this position, well, that in and of itself is significant. But the bottom line is, whatever this article says about Judaism, it cannot be what I think or what you think. It has to be what respected sources on Judaism have said or written, in verifiable sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Whether Messianic Jews are Jews is distinct from whether their "Judaism" is Judaism. Pretty clearly, a "Messianic" Jew born of a Jewish mother or who had properly converted is halachically Jewish. At the same time, though, it is the almost universal opinion of Jewish authorities since the rise of Christianity to now that believing that Jesus is G-d and the Messiah are fundamentally incompatible with Judaism. These, plus the self-view of "Messianic" Jews, are in my opinion the key things to present. -- Savant1984 19:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
The comment "Daniel Boyarin has argued that 'Jewishness disrupts the very categories of identity, because it is not national, not genealogical, not religious, but all of these, in dialectical tension.'", added by User:Slrubenstein on April 3, 2004 and eventually promoted to the article's introduction, strikes me as a very poor inclusion.
The terms "religion" and "nation" happen to encompass a bundle of ideas which represent the organization of christianity and european states very well. Given the cultural background of the English language, this should be unsurprising. The failure of these terms to adequately encompass other cultures is likewise unsurprising, and it is by no means unique to Judaism. Boyarin's comments do not represent confusion over "the very categories of identity" but his own mistake in taking "religion" and "nationhood" to be elementary units of such a thing.
To be honest, the quote strikes me as typical academic babble, using a string of fifty cent words and fuzzy categories to point out the obvious. It adds nothing to the article. Unless anyone objects, I would like to delete the comment entirely. -- April Arcus 05:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
This is incorrect. Judaism is not the religion of Christian Jews or Muslim Jews. I will fix this unless there are objections. 24.64.166.191 06:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Either (1) A Jew who has converted to Christianity - such a person is still regarded as a Jew by Judaism, albeit a bad one. (2) A Christian who has incorporated Jewish concepts into his/her religious practice. (3) A messianic Jew. JFW | T@lk 10:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Urgent: see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) to add your opinions about this important matter. Thank you. IZAK 18:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Earlier, I added the following to the Brit Milah section, and it was reverted by user Savant1984 who claimed it was vandalism. I disagree with this, as the information is basic to Brit Milah, covering aspects that are often ignored, to everyone's detriment. This is a topic with which I am seriously concerned, because it has affected me and my loved ones very personally. May I ask what you considered objectionable in my posting? It was as follows:
Brit Milah - "Initiating male babies into the biblical covenant through the violent rite of circumcision, wherein part of the penis is removed, traumatizing the child, disrupting his neurological and emotional development, and creating a permanent diminishment in his capacity for sexual pleasure throughout his adult life. This violent initiation ritual creates a psychological trap for the adult participants, binding them to Judaism, since in order to discard their mental framework of Jewish belief, they would now have to face the fact that, unwittingly, they have participated in an atrocity."
Thank you for any sincere comments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.242.171.140 ( talk • contribs) .
Thanks for informing me of these guidelines. - ~~~~
I find the recent shift of part of this to a multi-column format annoying, especially where it is done with prose rather than lists. What do others think? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
This article says jews accept the word of all the prophets. I think this is misleading since it doesn't say who the jewish prohets are! Jew's don't accept the quran as the word of god for example.
I changed the heading from "Religious views" to "Orthodox views." My word choice may not be perfect, but it is better than the prior version because many Jews reject the claim that the oral Torah was revealed at Sinai or even that God revealed the written Torah at Sinai, and yet consider themselves very religious — and some even observe the law. Slrubenstein | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 06:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
This is a very good article and it should be published. -- Zondor 08:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Would editors knowledgable about the Judeo-Christian ethic or tradition see my comment here: [12]? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 01:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
To this sentence:
someone added
I just reverted. My reversion hasnothing to do with my own point of view. But on the face of it, the clause I deleted is admitting that the sources for this claim areunverifiable. It thus violates Wikipedia:No original research. If someone can provide a verifiable source for this claim, of course I would have no objection at all to re-inserting it into the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Orthodox,Ultra Orthodox,Reform,Conservative,Constructionist,Reconstructionist,Half-Jew(moms side), Progressive,Revisionist,,,,,,,,,,AHHHHHHHHH!
Who is Jewish? There is only one kind of Jew- the Jewish Jew. Halacha says that a someone who has a Jewish mother or Converted Halachically, has a Jewish soul [and is thus Jewish]. Simplifies things a bit, doesn't it?
Jews have one Code of Law. The Shulchan Aruch. Theres no need to spur confusion.
One more thing- for the record- A 'Hebrew Christian' or a 'JewforJesus' is an oxymoron. Doesnt fit. its like - a Jewish Gentile-- Reb Roovie 09:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Meditation is currently a nominee on WP:IDRIVE. If you would like to see this article improved vote for it on WP:IDRIVE.-- Fenice 15:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I deleted an inaccurate and POV passage about "Ultra-Orthodox" Jews that identified them as a subset of Haredi Jews and accused them of "going to extremes". Benami 03:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I deleted a passage that listed adherence to kashrut by denomination. Since there's already a section outlining in detail the approach of each movement to halakha, I didn't think that every aspect of Jewish practice has to be split into "Orthodox Jews do this, Conservative Jews do this, etc." Benami 19:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Why do we give special mention to the Shulkhan Arukh in the opening? Doesn't it fall under halakha, being merely Caro's codification thereof? To be sure, it's significant as the definitive code for most Orthodox Jews, but giving it special prominence in the opening here seems denominational bias toward them. -- Savant1984 18:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I removed a reference to Yahweh from the Critical development section, since it would have been the only reference to this name in the article. I also think that using it is about as problematic as using one of the older suppositions at how to pronounce Y-H-W-H - Jehovah. Benami 00:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I have created the above page: further information welcome. Jackiespeel 17:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Joseph Campbell, The Hero with a thousand faces:
Persian belief was reorganized by the prophet Zarathushtra according to a strict dualism of good and evil principles, light and dark, angels and devils. This crisis profoundly affected not only the Persians, but also the subject Hebrew beliefs, and thereby (centuries later) Christianity.
"Now it was from this very creed of Zoroaster that the Jews derived all the angelology of their religion...the belief in a future state; of rewards and punishments, ...the soul's immortality, and the Last Judgment - all of them essential parts of the Zoroastrian scheme." From The Gnostics and Their Remains (London 1887) by King and Moore quoted at 607a in Peake's Bible Commentary.
FROM ENCYCLOPEDIA AMERICANA : "First, the figure of Satan, originally a servant of God, appointed by Him as His prosecutor, came more and more to resemble Ahriman, the enemy of God. Secondly, the figure of the Messiah, originally a future King of Israel who would save his people from oppression, evolved, in Deutero-Isaiah for instance, into a universal Savior very similar to the Iranian Saoshyant. Other points of comparison between Iran and Israel include the doctrine of the millennia; the Last Judgment; the heavenly book in which human actions are inscribed; the Resurrection; the final transformation of the earth; paradise on earth or in heaven; and hell." by J. Duchesne-Guillemin, University of Liege, Belgium
This text (not mine) was wrongly placed by an anon. It may be useful elswhere if there is truth in it and if important enough. 02:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC) In 2006 a class action lawsuit, filed by Stephanie Gamm of Boca Raton, Florida was brought against the University of Central Florida for their support of an anti-semantic candidate for Student Government.
I have been working on the Forgiveness article. Would someone be willing to take a stab at adding a Judaism heading under the "Religious and spiritual views of forgiveness" heading in that article and trying to concisely state Judaism's view on forgiveness? Any help would be appreciated. -- speet 04:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC) BAM!!
I have read that early Judiasm may have been monolatristic - i.e., that they accepted the existence of many gods, but believed that only God should be worshipped. In fact, it is alluded to in the section titled "Critical historical view of the development of Judaism" (as of this post, section 3). Would it be appropriate to mention monolatrism in that, or other, sections? -- 24.225.247.157 06:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The word that scholars use is Henotheism and virtually all non-Orthodox scholars I know of hold this view. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Good question. But I just deleted the passage. Aside from being poorly worded, it was entirely inappropriate to that section which is about the emergence of Rabbinic Judaism. Moreover, the evidence from Uggaritic is hardly new - this is the kind of stuff scholars were talking about a hundred years ago. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The topic is pertinent to the first sentence of the firt paragraph and does not fit in at all with the remaining sentences. One day, someone ought to take the first sentence and turn it into a full paragraph, with a link to the article on the documentary hypothesis and other related articles. Such a paragraph whould summarize Ibn Ezra and Spinoza's pioneering work, and then the groundbreaking work by Wellhausen, Gunkel, and Kauffman and other historians/Bible scholars, as well as work by archeologists. But the sentence I deleted was poorly written, unsourced, unclear, and tangential. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Is in Easteurope a area or a town where a lot of Jews are living today? Simon MAYER
Would people who regularly follow/contribute to this article please look at [14] ( Primitive Yahwism and the talk page, where I express my concerns? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
shame on you people (writters of the article, that is), as one of the worlds main religions i find it hard to believe that theres not even the slightest criticism towards judaism.
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | → | Archive 10 |
The page shows a picture of the Menorah, as being a symbol of Judaism, but then points out that it isn't a truly "kosher" Menorah. So what's the point in putting it there? Was it too difficult to find an image of a "Kosher" Menorah? Loomis51 16:36, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
I am removing the "unkoshe" comment hich I believe is wrong. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Two things distinguish Judaism from the other religions that existed when it first developed.
First, it was monotheistic. The significance of this belief is not so much the denial of other gods; although this element is fundamental to Rabbinic Judaism, according to most critical Bible scholars the Torah often implies that the early Israelites accepted the existence of other gods. Rather, the significance lies in that Judaism holds that God created and cares about people. In polythestic religions, humankind is often created by accident, and the gods are primarily concerned with their relations with other gods, not with people.
Second, the Torah specifies a number of laws to be followed by the Children of Israel. Other religions at the time were characterized by temples in which priests would worship their gods through sacrifice. The Children of Israel similarly had a temple, priests, and made sacrifices -— but these were not the sole means of worshipping God. In comparison to other religions, Judaism elevates everyday life to the level of a temple, and worships God through everyday actions.
By the Hellenic period, most Jews had come to believe that their God was the only God (and thus, the God of everyone), and that the record of His revelation (the Torah) contained within it universal truths. This attitude may reflect growing Gentile interest in Judaism (some Greeks and Romans considered the Jews a most "philosophical" people because of their belief in a God that cannot be represented visually), and growing Jewish interest in Greek philosophy, which sought to establish universal truths.
Jews began to grapple with the tension between the particularism of their claim that only Jews were required to obey the Torah, and the universalism of their claim that the Torah contained universal truths. The result is a set of beliefs and practices concerning both identity, ethics, one's relation to nature, and one's relation to God, that privilege "difference" -— the difference between Jews and non-Jews; the differences between locally variable ways of practicing Judaism; a close attention to different meanings of words when interpreting texts; attempts to encode different points of view within texts, and a relative indifference to creed and dogma.
Ezra, you cannot delete material just because you do not agree with it. It is true that critical scholars have a different view than Orthodox Jews. The paragraphs you do not like specify that they reflect the view of critical scholars. If you want to add the Orthodox view, of course you can do that (as long as you specify whose view it is). But do not delete stuff you don't like. Even the Rabbis zl included in the Talmud views they disagreed with. Stop desecrating their memory. Slrubenstein -- Ezra Wax 05:08, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Slr: I am not complaining that I don't agree with the material, I am complaining that it is very one sided. It is not redeemable by adding another view, because there is no reason to add conflicting views into the introdcution. The whole introduction ought to be deleted as it is very difficult to say something that will be agreed to by everyone. All the points must be made where there is room to cover them more fully. How can you put the paragraphs back in when they specifically denigrate "Rabbinical Judaism" by saying that the Rabbis couldn't learn a pasuk of Chumash as well as some secular historian? It is your responsibility to fix the paragraphs before you put them back. Not my responsibility. -- Ezra Wax 00:32, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Ezra, I don't think I ever said the Rabbis can't learn a pasuk of Chumash as well as a secular historian. At most, I believe that they read pasuks differently, for different purposes. Where did I say they can't read as well? Slrubenstein
Has anybody here read "The Gifts of the Jews" by Thomas Cahill? He discusses the role of Jewish thought as revolutionary in the context of the ancient world because Abraham introduced the first recorded attempt to set life in terms of a linear narrative-- the notion of religious belief as a story. At this time, the rest of the world had suspended their faiths into neverending calendars which reiterated through predestined cycles and tracked the repetitive machinations of ever-static gods, divorced from time and space. Our religion was the first to weave life in the heavens and life on earth into one continuous and forward-looking thread with a definite beginning and a definite end. At any rate, I think the book (specifically the first third or so) will help clear up some of the snags up above, because it puts the advent of monotheism and all its theological implications in context with the beliefs of the time. That said, I have to say that this article is very well written. It is clear and even-handed, and I want to give a big yasher koach to all of you. -- O.
In comparison to other religions, Judaism is not primarily concerned with an afterlife, tending to elevate everyday life to the level of a temple, and worshipping God through the spectrum of everyday life and actions instead.
RK - since you removed this without preliminary discussion on the talk page, I have put it back in without discussion either. Dovi 12:05, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
To those who are mourning and fasting today - may it be meaningful (and easy). May we be comforted along with Jerusalem. Dovi 12:07, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
A highly stuctured short list like the present one is entirely appropriate in this context. It is (I repeat) clear and concise, very useful, and of central importance to the main article. Precisely for length reasons, there are other sections of the main article that should be shortened, spun off, or even converted to similar structured lists (e.g. "clergy"). And since it is the main article, those changes should be discussed in advance. Dovi 03:50, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
I changed "Traditional view" back to Rabbinical view." Here is why: "traditional" is vague and too broad. Most critical scholars now understand "tradition" to mean "of recent invention," which I am sure is not what Ezra meant. Conversely, others think "traditional" means "from time immemorial," which does not apply to this account. Ezra, as far as I can tell, is summing up exactly what he said -- Rabbinic views (i.e. views that came emerged during the Rabbinic period). There is no evidence that Jews in other periods ascribed to all of these beliefs.
That said I still have problems with Ezara's work. I accept and respect his insistance that views other than those of critical historians be included. I have no objection to including a "Rabbinic view." It is just that I don't think that What Ezra wrote really "introduces" the rest of the article. I think it is more an attempt to summarize majore Rabbinic beliefs. I am not saying the whole thing needs to be rewritten but I encourage Ezra or others to edit it to make it tighter and lead more effectively into the article. Slrubenstein
---
To Jayjg and all concerned: I have removed Ezra's sermon for three reasons:
This introduction keeps getting renamed the "critical historical view", as if all of it was somehow at odds with the teachings of classical rabbinic Judaism. That is not so! Most (not all, see below) of this text is not only comptabible with classical rabbinic Judaism, but is explicitly taught by many Orthodox rabbis. RK 02:49, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
Why is it that the Yiddish Wikipedia has only 14 articles, but one of them is on gefiltefish, while we have no articles on gefiltefish out of our over 350000 articles? What's up with that? gefiltefish yi:געפילטעפיש - node
Mark, it has to do with cultural obsessions. To Yiddish-speakers, gefilte fish must be one of the fourteen most important things in the world, ahead of George W. Bush and John F. Kerry. :-) JFW | T@lk 00:10, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yoshia, please bring proposed changes to the Karaite section here first. Thanks. Jayjg 05:40, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
While not considered a form of Judaism Talmidaism should be listed at least in passing, under a see also or whatever. The section I added was very NPOV and while not perfect should not have been reverted. Jayjg state your biases please. -- metta, The Sunborn ☸ 16:42, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Hello all... i'm not a jewish person but have a great deal of interest in both Israel & Judaism, and have doubts as to the meaning of "sephardic jew"
Wikipedia & other i-net resources have given me the definition most of you will know (from Iberian peninsula, emigrating to the mediteranean region, etc...) but what raised my doubts is something else.
I recently saw a documentary which claimed that Sephardic jews originated from a tribe in a land adjacent to israel (in the north, though i forgot its ancient name). The king/leader of this tribe was deeply impressed with his jewish neighbours and converted himself, as well as all his people, to judaism...
I can find nothing to back this up, and would love any imput you're wishing to provide..
Thank you all,
Hayden
Mmm.... that's kind of backwards. The Sephardics, being those who were more local to the Holy Land, are probably closer to the original. The reference you seem to have is probably to the Khazars, a tribe who converted to Judaism and became part of the Ashkenazik, or Northern European branch of the religion, from whom most American Jews are descended. I'll let you search the details for yourself, the Web is full of all kinds of stuff on the topic, some reliable, some insane; I couldn't hope to pick out an objectively reliable selection. I will point out, however, that there is genetic evidence linking Ashkenazic Jews to Shephardic Jews, and both groups to the residents of the Arabic peninsula; most closely, ironically but not unexpectedly, to the Palestinians.
Gzuckier 15:35, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Olve & Gzuckier: Thank you for the insight... i will look into some of the points you made... and i definitely agree with you on one basic point Olve - reality is always more complicated than people make it out to be... especially on television.
The article Zoroastrianism claims that Zoroastrianism was an influence on the development on Judaism, but this article has nothing to say on the matter. What gives? Who's right?
It is more of an influence on the Essenes and Christianity (eschatology, soteriology, satan, heaven, hell, purgatory, angels, .. the list goes on forever). However, it is suggested that before the Babylonian exile the Jews were more henotheistic than strictly monotheistic (the same kind of criticism exists in the dualism of Zoroastrianism, even though it is primarily monotheistic in nature as well), and that sheol, for instance, was replaced with an eternal soul and an afterlife depending on your conduct in life. But since Moses and Zarathushtra were contemporaries, any ancient pre-Daniel influence would have been mutual, if occurring at all. And it was my understanding that the משיח if not just 'an anointed one' was a savior of the Jewish people that would deliver them from the Romans (as Moses led his people from bondage), and not a cosmic world savior like the Zoroastrian Saoshyant whom is prophesized to be announced by a star, be born of a virgin, have a halo, perform miracles, and resurrect the dead and renovate the world at the Day of Judgement (Frashegird). Last time I was at the Zoroastrian article talk page there was dispute between the consensus of us and an Evangelical or two. I gave it up, and am instead using my time productively writing Zoroastrian related articles, due to the complete dearth thereof. If I have made myself sound like an ignorant gentile, that's 'cause I am! I came here wanting to ask about the eternal flame of the temple (?) in Judaism because of one of the articles I'm currently writing. And lo and behold, this serendipitous question. Zoroastrianism is sorta my forte, to put it lightly. Please ask me anything you want to know, and teach me what you know! I can give internet resources, book resources, and dig up those good ol' Bible (or Tanakh in this case) passages (if I can remember which source has which reference!). Khirad talk
I think alphabetical is the most neutral way to list them. However, if they're going to be listed by size (as a recent edit changed it), I'll believe that Orthodox is the largest in the Diaspora (since it accounts for the majority of active Jews outside of Israel and North America), but Reform is larger than Conservative in the US according to the latest NJPS, and the US accounts for the majority of Reform/Conservative Jews, so it's reasonable to say that Reform is larger than Conservative in the Diaspora as a whole. Dreyfus 23:20, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi, welcome the new Wikipedia {{Judaism-stub}} Template:Judaism-stub [1]. There is also a new {{Israel-stub}} Template:Israel-stub [2]. Please use them when coming across relevant "stub" articles. Best wishes, IZAK 14:26, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Isn't the star of david normally blue? Masterhomer 07:50, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi everybody. I'm wondering if it wouldn't be better to put the star under Jew as it is more a cultural symbol than a religious symbol. Even the Menorah should be put there as in the way it is being presented here it is also a cultural and not religious symbol. Although I must admit that I am not entirely comfortable with it being there either. I would put it under an article on Jewish culture or Jewish nationalism. Ezra Wax 04:24, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As a religious Jew I would like to confirm that the menorah is the official symbol of Judaism. The Star of David is the symbol of israel, not of the religion as a whole, and in fact it's origin is not really known. I've always assumed it was a coat of arms or a crest. But I don't know where it originated, and I don't think anyone does.
Gringo300 09:11, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I have added substantial text to the The_names_of_God_in_Judaism and need some help in checking the text for accuracy. Any help anyone can offer will be much appreciated. -- Zappaz 17:16, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As a religious Jew I would like to point out an error. Abraham was NOT a jew. This subject has a huge discussion in the talmud. And the final answer is that he was not a jew. All jews became jewish at the giving of the torah at mount sinai. That event "started" the jewish religion. Everyone present (irregardless of descent, and there were many who didn't descend from abraham) became jewish at that moment.
Additionally Abraham can not be the first jew because it decends via the mother - and if Sarah was a jew then what about eysav (the other son)?
A better way to write this is:
Judaism traces its origin to Abraham, who was the first to recognise a monotheistic god.
I stand corrected, I am glad you checked the source. I do not think that the article even mentions matrilineality — but if someone ever thought it should be discussed, certainly a sentence like "Although Haredim (or Orthodox Jews) believe that Judaism is passed down through the mother's line, historian Shaye Cohen has argued that this belief did not emerge until the Second Temple period" or something like that. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:48, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Although I do not believe that the matrilineal rule is based in the Tanach, I do not believe that makes the Tannaim or the Amoraim disingenuous. As critical scholars of the Talmud (e.g. Jacob Neusner) have observed, the sages' understanding of the Oral Law is complex and to modern ears even hopelessly paradoxical. But that does not mean that they were intentionally deceiving or misleading themselves or their audience. They were not being disingenuous, they were being earnest and sincere working within a theology, epistemology, and hermeneutics that most of us do not share today, but that made perfect sense to them. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I've read the same thing on more or less reliable mainstream sources, not revisionism type sources, the specifics of which I can't remember; that there is archaeological evidence of ancient settlements around Hebron and Nablus that are somehow identified as the Hebrews (i.e., Abraham's tribe and Isaac's) and there is also archaeological evidence of a large influx of people some time later (i.e. the 12 tribes arrive from Egypt) which identify themselves with those two original tribes, but there is in fact no archaeological evidence at all of the exile to Egypt, the presence of Hebrews in Egypt, or, by extension, any actual linkage of the group 'returning from exile' with the original two settlements other than their claim to be so. However I agree that this info/speculation doesn't fit well in the intro, and maybe not even in this article unless there is some general archaeological discussion I haven't noticed. Gzuckier 05:53, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I gather we don't have a WikiProject on Judaism, so I thought I'd ask here for help on Alisha Ben Abuyah. I did at least a fair job of adapting the Jewish Encyclopedia article, and added information about the Jacob Gordin play. This could all use review by someone more knowledgable than I (I'm from an utterly secular background). I have some specific questions at Talk:Alisha Ben Abuyah, mostly about citing the Mishnah, but there is more.
Do we have an article anywhere (main space or Wikipedia space) about citing Talmudic works? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:24, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
Are we sure it isn't Elisha? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:09, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I changed it to Elisha. "Alisha" is just wrong. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:23, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In the historical context of this article, is it really appropriate to link "Persia" to Iran? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:29, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)
Hi & sorry for being a bit offtopic, but would someone please check the article about the
synagogue in my hometown both for English grammar and from Jewish point of view? thanks –
Alensha 21:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) Moved it to the wikiproject Judaism
Alensha 21:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"During this stretch of time, Jews have experienced slavery, anarchic self-government, theocratic self-government, conquest, occupation, and exile; ... " Could someone please add more information about this "anarchic self-government"? Guaka 00:24, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
According to both traditional Jews and critical historical scholars, a number of ideas distinguish Judaism from the other religions that existed when it first developed. One characteristic was monotheism. The significance of this idea lies in that Judaism holds that God created, and cares about, humankind. In polytheistic religions, humankind is often created by accident, and the gods are primarily concerned with their relations with other gods, not with people.
While such an association between monotheism and divine concern (and the corresponding association between polytheism and lack of divine concern) is found in some belief systems, there is no intrinsic connection. Aristotle, for example, thought that the Creator (note the monotheism) created the world but doesn't sustain it. Friedrich Nietzsche also believed in a Creator who left the universe to function for itself. By contrast, many polytheistic religions believed/believe in personal, family, and/or national "guardian" gods. This paragraph needs to be revamped - posthaste! HKT 2:44, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
This is just to inform people that I want Wikipedia to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:55, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Someone keeps deleting the section on Jewish philosophy. If this person doesn't give a reasonable explanation, we will have to consider him/her a vandal. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
I should explain that the actions of user 62.253.64.14 follow from a debate on the Zoroastrianism page, which was subjected to a Disputed Neutrality notice because of the presence of well-known arguments about the influence of Zoroastrianism on the development of Judaism. These, along with some uncontroversial statements, were declared to be "blatant POV" by one editor. Several users including the estimable Slrubenstein insisted that these statements must be backed up by references, or were unacceptable. In the discussion I pointed out that many disputable claims about the early history of Judaism were equally unsupported. It was suggested that I could simply demand references or alterations in such cases. Though I didn't say so, I thought it far more likely that any such a request would simply be reverted, because of the problem of systemic bias. It seems that user 62.253.64.14 has decided to make the experiment. And by the way, he isn't an anonymous me. Paul B 23:24, 17 June 2005 (UTC)
As to Zoroastrianism, I certainly made it clear that it should be mentioned in this article; the only question is, what about it, and using what sources. I could add information myself on the influence of Zoroastrianism, though only from books that are relying on other people's research. Either way, it should be sourced. As you Paul's childish tit-for-tat "well, there are statements about Judaism that don't have citations" I really wish he would stop interpreting my response as a sign of systematic bias and instead see it as serious and genuine: point out which sentences, specifically, and if among us contributors we can't find a source, we will take it out. This is one of the major ways Wikipedia articles evolve. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
There is no mention here, of the Ethiopian Jews, whose religious practices are sometimes quite "alien" to what is discussed in this article. Anyone know enough to write something about it? Tomer TALK July 8, 2005 16:19 (UTC)
The recent edit by 200.11.242.33 and reverted by Pharos, was a copyvio, apparently copied from here. Paul August ☎ 20:53, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Some of you (even non-Yiddish speakers) might be interested in my half-baked plan to revitalize the moribund (only 121 articles) Yiddish Wikipedia. Please see my idea at Talk:Yiddish_language#Yiddish_Wikipedia, and thanks.-- Pharos 05:26, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
(1) I say this borders on trivia, one such study is almost certainly contestable, and it does not belong in an article on the religion, though I guess it does (with citation, missing here) at Kashrut. (2) If someone decides it belongs here, I would guess that "John Hopkins" here refers to "Johns Hopkins. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:13, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
Please visit Talk:Brit-dam and add your two-cents.
— <TALK JNDRLINE TALK> 30 August 2005
I'm going to assume that Jordain's inserting "BC/AD" into this article, against clear consensus not to use that terminology on topics about Judaism, was not a deliberate act of religious hostility. I have reverted it. If the change is repeated, I will presume that my assumption of good faith was misplaced. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:25, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Hello, I've been working on the "Meditation" entry, and I would like to request some knowledgable person(s) to try to summarize "Jewish meditation" in a few sentences. (Or if you have the energy, do a whole new entry and then link to that.)
For instance, is there some word or words in Hebrew that correspond to "meditation"? What types are there, and how are they conceived? What groups within Judaism practice them? Etc.
Thank you, --Dawud
Thank you! I'll look for the book, and in the meantime post this.
Call me old school, but the only people who can study Kabbalah (aside from critical scholars), and the only ones who can practice it, must be 40 year-old married Talmud scholars. Anyone who does not fit those minimum qualifications is not practicing Kabbalah, no matter what they say. If you are interested in how Kabbalah can and has been popularized (so that its core theological elements, and some practices, are present though not such that anyone would call it Kabbalah), then look to Hassidic Judaism. That is as close to Kabbalah for the masses as one can get — so far. There is, if this is something you are really interested in, a book called 8 1/2 Mystics that is fairly accessible. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:27, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
A contemporary Hebrew dictionary provides two words for "meditate." The intransitive verb is hey resh hey resh (which can also be translated as "to think"), and the transitive verb is shin kuf lamed (which can also mean "to weigh, to consider" -- it is the same root as the one for money, since money is "measured," you know, like, worth its weight in gold). How people use the words and what they really mean is another thing. I would recommend as sources Kaplan's book, Buber's book on Hasidism, and Eight and a Half Mystics as basic sources on Jewish meditation. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Even the Messianic Judaism page states that the Jewish people do not consider Messianic Judaism as a denomination of Judaism. Since the Messianic Judaism movement was started by Christians and holds that Jesus is/was the messiah, it cannot logically be a demonination of Judaism. Judaism holds that the messiah has not come yet - how in the world could Messianic Judaism be a branch of a religion that does not accept that a messiah has arrived yet?
Messianic Judaism is a form of Christianity (because it accepts Jesus as the messiah) that also accepts Jewish practices (i.e. observance of the Jewish Sabbath) as part of their doctrine.
I removed the Messianic Judaism link because it is NOT a Jewish movement.
See the pages on Jewish Movements and Messianic Judaism.
70.250.173.164 anonymous
I couldn't find this on the Jews for Jesus website. Their view of Jewish law seems identical with that of Evangelical Christianity (see http://www.jewsforjesus.org/publications/newsletter/1989_07/liberty for a salient article), but there might well be a tendency toward circumcision which is rooted socially rather than theologically. Half of all American men are circumcised anyway, so one would imagine the pressures in a group like that to be even higher. Or, you could ask on the Jews for Jesus discussion board. --Dawud
Jews for jesus is not the only messianic jewish denomination. They are a branch or denomination of Judaism from the messianic point of view. I am one myself. Jews have varying views on what makes one a jew, so your arguments are invalid about circumcission and mothership. Some jews don't hold to the maternal but the paternal line. Some messianic jews believe you must circumcise to be a jew some don't. Some, what you would call authentic jews would say you have to keep all the laws and some would not. ( J. D. Hunt 09:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC))
Jews and christians trace jewishness, originally, through the father's line to abraham. They, both also, link the messiah to king david through the father's line. so, by birth and through christ they believe they and christianity are jewish. just cause most don't believe this don't make it not true. its messiannic POV vs Treditional jews POV. ( J. D. Hunt 09:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC))
It just occurred to me that there are "messianic Jews" (i.e. self-identifying Jews who believe the messiah has already come) who recognize someone other than Jesus as the messiah. What about the followers of that Lubavitcher rebbe, Menachem Schneerson? And Shabbatai Zevi? (Whose followers existed as a group until the twentieth century.) Schneerson observed Jewish law, Zevi converted to Islam. --Dawud
So, Jdhunt, you are saying that Jews are Jews because they are descended from Abraham (presumably through Isaac and then Jacob), whether they believe in the Talmud or the New Testament; whether they believe Jesus was the messiah or not. Okay, I assume this is your personal position, and that is fine. Of course, our articles cannot be based on original research or represent our own views. So what we really need to know is, are there any significant or major scholars or organizations that express this view in a reputable verifiable source. Similalrly, we need to know if any major Jewish organization takes this position. If no major Jewish organization takes this position, well, that in and of itself is significant. But the bottom line is, whatever this article says about Judaism, it cannot be what I think or what you think. It has to be what respected sources on Judaism have said or written, in verifiable sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:50, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Whether Messianic Jews are Jews is distinct from whether their "Judaism" is Judaism. Pretty clearly, a "Messianic" Jew born of a Jewish mother or who had properly converted is halachically Jewish. At the same time, though, it is the almost universal opinion of Jewish authorities since the rise of Christianity to now that believing that Jesus is G-d and the Messiah are fundamentally incompatible with Judaism. These, plus the self-view of "Messianic" Jews, are in my opinion the key things to present. -- Savant1984 19:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
The comment "Daniel Boyarin has argued that 'Jewishness disrupts the very categories of identity, because it is not national, not genealogical, not religious, but all of these, in dialectical tension.'", added by User:Slrubenstein on April 3, 2004 and eventually promoted to the article's introduction, strikes me as a very poor inclusion.
The terms "religion" and "nation" happen to encompass a bundle of ideas which represent the organization of christianity and european states very well. Given the cultural background of the English language, this should be unsurprising. The failure of these terms to adequately encompass other cultures is likewise unsurprising, and it is by no means unique to Judaism. Boyarin's comments do not represent confusion over "the very categories of identity" but his own mistake in taking "religion" and "nationhood" to be elementary units of such a thing.
To be honest, the quote strikes me as typical academic babble, using a string of fifty cent words and fuzzy categories to point out the obvious. It adds nothing to the article. Unless anyone objects, I would like to delete the comment entirely. -- April Arcus 05:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
This is incorrect. Judaism is not the religion of Christian Jews or Muslim Jews. I will fix this unless there are objections. 24.64.166.191 06:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Either (1) A Jew who has converted to Christianity - such a person is still regarded as a Jew by Judaism, albeit a bad one. (2) A Christian who has incorporated Jewish concepts into his/her religious practice. (3) A messianic Jew. JFW | T@lk 10:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Urgent: see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Hebrew) to add your opinions about this important matter. Thank you. IZAK 18:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Earlier, I added the following to the Brit Milah section, and it was reverted by user Savant1984 who claimed it was vandalism. I disagree with this, as the information is basic to Brit Milah, covering aspects that are often ignored, to everyone's detriment. This is a topic with which I am seriously concerned, because it has affected me and my loved ones very personally. May I ask what you considered objectionable in my posting? It was as follows:
Brit Milah - "Initiating male babies into the biblical covenant through the violent rite of circumcision, wherein part of the penis is removed, traumatizing the child, disrupting his neurological and emotional development, and creating a permanent diminishment in his capacity for sexual pleasure throughout his adult life. This violent initiation ritual creates a psychological trap for the adult participants, binding them to Judaism, since in order to discard their mental framework of Jewish belief, they would now have to face the fact that, unwittingly, they have participated in an atrocity."
Thank you for any sincere comments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.242.171.140 ( talk • contribs) .
Thanks for informing me of these guidelines. - ~~~~
I find the recent shift of part of this to a multi-column format annoying, especially where it is done with prose rather than lists. What do others think? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
This article says jews accept the word of all the prophets. I think this is misleading since it doesn't say who the jewish prohets are! Jew's don't accept the quran as the word of god for example.
I changed the heading from "Religious views" to "Orthodox views." My word choice may not be perfect, but it is better than the prior version because many Jews reject the claim that the oral Torah was revealed at Sinai or even that God revealed the written Torah at Sinai, and yet consider themselves very religious — and some even observe the law. Slrubenstein | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 06:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
This is a very good article and it should be published. -- Zondor 08:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Would editors knowledgable about the Judeo-Christian ethic or tradition see my comment here: [12]? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 01:04, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
To this sentence:
someone added
I just reverted. My reversion hasnothing to do with my own point of view. But on the face of it, the clause I deleted is admitting that the sources for this claim areunverifiable. It thus violates Wikipedia:No original research. If someone can provide a verifiable source for this claim, of course I would have no objection at all to re-inserting it into the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Orthodox,Ultra Orthodox,Reform,Conservative,Constructionist,Reconstructionist,Half-Jew(moms side), Progressive,Revisionist,,,,,,,,,,AHHHHHHHHH!
Who is Jewish? There is only one kind of Jew- the Jewish Jew. Halacha says that a someone who has a Jewish mother or Converted Halachically, has a Jewish soul [and is thus Jewish]. Simplifies things a bit, doesn't it?
Jews have one Code of Law. The Shulchan Aruch. Theres no need to spur confusion.
One more thing- for the record- A 'Hebrew Christian' or a 'JewforJesus' is an oxymoron. Doesnt fit. its like - a Jewish Gentile-- Reb Roovie 09:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Meditation is currently a nominee on WP:IDRIVE. If you would like to see this article improved vote for it on WP:IDRIVE.-- Fenice 15:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
I deleted an inaccurate and POV passage about "Ultra-Orthodox" Jews that identified them as a subset of Haredi Jews and accused them of "going to extremes". Benami 03:06, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
I deleted a passage that listed adherence to kashrut by denomination. Since there's already a section outlining in detail the approach of each movement to halakha, I didn't think that every aspect of Jewish practice has to be split into "Orthodox Jews do this, Conservative Jews do this, etc." Benami 19:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Why do we give special mention to the Shulkhan Arukh in the opening? Doesn't it fall under halakha, being merely Caro's codification thereof? To be sure, it's significant as the definitive code for most Orthodox Jews, but giving it special prominence in the opening here seems denominational bias toward them. -- Savant1984 18:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I removed a reference to Yahweh from the Critical development section, since it would have been the only reference to this name in the article. I also think that using it is about as problematic as using one of the older suppositions at how to pronounce Y-H-W-H - Jehovah. Benami 00:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I have created the above page: further information welcome. Jackiespeel 17:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Joseph Campbell, The Hero with a thousand faces:
Persian belief was reorganized by the prophet Zarathushtra according to a strict dualism of good and evil principles, light and dark, angels and devils. This crisis profoundly affected not only the Persians, but also the subject Hebrew beliefs, and thereby (centuries later) Christianity.
"Now it was from this very creed of Zoroaster that the Jews derived all the angelology of their religion...the belief in a future state; of rewards and punishments, ...the soul's immortality, and the Last Judgment - all of them essential parts of the Zoroastrian scheme." From The Gnostics and Their Remains (London 1887) by King and Moore quoted at 607a in Peake's Bible Commentary.
FROM ENCYCLOPEDIA AMERICANA : "First, the figure of Satan, originally a servant of God, appointed by Him as His prosecutor, came more and more to resemble Ahriman, the enemy of God. Secondly, the figure of the Messiah, originally a future King of Israel who would save his people from oppression, evolved, in Deutero-Isaiah for instance, into a universal Savior very similar to the Iranian Saoshyant. Other points of comparison between Iran and Israel include the doctrine of the millennia; the Last Judgment; the heavenly book in which human actions are inscribed; the Resurrection; the final transformation of the earth; paradise on earth or in heaven; and hell." by J. Duchesne-Guillemin, University of Liege, Belgium
This text (not mine) was wrongly placed by an anon. It may be useful elswhere if there is truth in it and if important enough. 02:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC) In 2006 a class action lawsuit, filed by Stephanie Gamm of Boca Raton, Florida was brought against the University of Central Florida for their support of an anti-semantic candidate for Student Government.
I have been working on the Forgiveness article. Would someone be willing to take a stab at adding a Judaism heading under the "Religious and spiritual views of forgiveness" heading in that article and trying to concisely state Judaism's view on forgiveness? Any help would be appreciated. -- speet 04:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC) BAM!!
I have read that early Judiasm may have been monolatristic - i.e., that they accepted the existence of many gods, but believed that only God should be worshipped. In fact, it is alluded to in the section titled "Critical historical view of the development of Judaism" (as of this post, section 3). Would it be appropriate to mention monolatrism in that, or other, sections? -- 24.225.247.157 06:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The word that scholars use is Henotheism and virtually all non-Orthodox scholars I know of hold this view. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Good question. But I just deleted the passage. Aside from being poorly worded, it was entirely inappropriate to that section which is about the emergence of Rabbinic Judaism. Moreover, the evidence from Uggaritic is hardly new - this is the kind of stuff scholars were talking about a hundred years ago. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The topic is pertinent to the first sentence of the firt paragraph and does not fit in at all with the remaining sentences. One day, someone ought to take the first sentence and turn it into a full paragraph, with a link to the article on the documentary hypothesis and other related articles. Such a paragraph whould summarize Ibn Ezra and Spinoza's pioneering work, and then the groundbreaking work by Wellhausen, Gunkel, and Kauffman and other historians/Bible scholars, as well as work by archeologists. But the sentence I deleted was poorly written, unsourced, unclear, and tangential. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Is in Easteurope a area or a town where a lot of Jews are living today? Simon MAYER
Would people who regularly follow/contribute to this article please look at [14] ( Primitive Yahwism and the talk page, where I express my concerns? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
shame on you people (writters of the article, that is), as one of the worlds main religions i find it hard to believe that theres not even the slightest criticism towards judaism.