Talk:Judaism

See also: Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism

Older discussions may be found here:

Talk:Judaism Archive
Talk:Judaism/Archive 2
Talk:Judaism/Archive 3
Talk:Judaism/Archive 4
Talk:Judaism/Archive 5

Problems with Paragraphs

Two things distinguish Judaism from the other religions that existed when it first developed.

The Rabbis opinion is that right from the beginning there was belief in one God. Adam was aware of the existence of God, as was Noah, and Shem and Ever. What is meant by when when it first developed?

Most Orthodox rabbis hold that Judaism never existed until the time of Abraham. What Orthodox group preaches differently? Also, many Modern Orthodox rabbis admit that what we know today as rabbinic Judaism didn't evolve until the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE. RK

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.

These sentences imply that the opinions of "critical Bible scholars" outweigh those of the Rabbis. This is unacceptable.

It makes no such statement; you can read such judgements or insults into this text, but they aren't there. RK 03:03, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

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.

Why does the introduction of the temple have to be in the form that it is something that other nations had?

Even Orthodox rabbis admit that every other religion and nationalist in that place and time had their own Temple; this is stated explicitly throughout the Talmud and midrash literature. Classical rabbinic Judaism holds that the structure of the Temple was not the point; it was the changes that Judaism offered to the world in terms of what we conceive of God to be, and how to offer service to God. RK 03:03, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

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.

This assumes that the view of the Jews changed. That is not the opinion of the Rabbis. It is also pure conjecture.

Maimonides himself describes times and places where the views of Jews changed. So does the Tanakh (Bible) itself! RK

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.

This continues to imply that the religion changed in fundamental ways. In any case, the seven Noahide laws existed from the time of Noah, and they are derived by the Talmud from a verse in parshas Noach.

No one knows when the seven Noahide laws came into existence. All we know is when the Talmud says that they were derived. RK 03:03, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

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.

I am brand new at this so go easy on me if I trip over any protocol. I just want to say that this sentence has grammatical problems. I had trouble connecting subject and object. Is Judaism tending to elevate everyday life to the level of a temple? Or is an afterlife tending to elevate everyday life to the level of a temple. Is Judaism worshipping God through the sprectrum of everyday life and actions (instead?) or is the non-Jewish afterlife doing that? This sentence should be restructured so that subject and object connections are clear. Mondo4 (7 May 2005)

There is only one reasonable parse: that Judaism tends to elevate life… and worship God&hellip -- Jmabel | Talk 02:02, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

The Traditional Jewish Bookshelf

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)

Our main articles usually do not contain lists or reading libraries. We used to have such things in many of our articles when they were smaller, but no longer. See the history of the article on Rabbi for an example. This article used to include a discussion of the topic as well as a list of rabbis, but that is no longer the case. The article became much longer, and the list of rabbis was spoun-off into its own article. The same thing happens on many Wikipedia articles. I suggest that the same should be true here. RK 17:39, 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)

Introduction

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

I wish you had just reverted the title, and not the other edits. Jayjg 18:45, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

To Jayjg and all concerned: I have removed Ezra's sermon for three reasons:

It is not an encyclopedia discussion of what Judaism is; it is instead his own personal philosophy of religion.

It is not the traditional rabbinic Jewish view. It is rather one person's modern interpretation of the various classic rabbinic views; note that many other interpretations of the classical view are possible. BTW, no Orthodox rabbi that I have studied with has ever described the nature of Judaism this way (but see my next point.)

The sermon was off-topic. Ezra would be correct to say that this represents the way that some Orthodox rabbis view the history of the Jewish people, but that subject is covered in other articles. This article is not about the early history of the Israelites! Please see the articles on Jew, Israelite, Children of Israel, Abraham and Noah. These articles would be more on-topic for what Ezra wants to write about. RK 21:42, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

Why don't you quote various parts of the section here, and explain why you think they are inappropriate? I too have issues with the section, and would welcome that. Jayjg 21:47, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, it looks to me that he is just recapping the entire history of the early Jews, an isn't really describing much of the faith. Wouldn't it make more sense to summarize this, and link to the relevant articles? Even in my preferred edits I am happy to have a section on traditional rabbinic descriptions of Judaism, just not a copy of history that fits elsewhere. RK

It appears that the critical-historical introduction also re-caps much of the history of the early Jews, in much the same way. Why is the latter acceptable while the former is not? Jayjg 00:30, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Slr's text doesn't recap the history of Judaism like Ezra's text does, not at all. Ezra goes into a person-by-person history, and offers us no content about what Judaism actually us. In contrast, Slr offers a broad overview, which shows step-by-step what Judaism is and how it differs from other faiths. In fact, I have read a number of articles and books by Orthodox rabbis whose approach is the same as Slr. Ezra Wax's text is embarassing; it looks like a 7th grade Orthodox junior high school book, and is not encyclopedia quality or even on-topic. RK 02:40, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Much of critical historical view is also the rabbinic view

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)

Judaism does not easily fit into common Western categories, such as religion, race, ethnicity, or culture. This is because Jews understand Judaism in terms of its 4,000-year history. During this stretch of time, Jews have experienced slavery, anarchic self-government, theocratic self-government, conquest, occupation, and exile; they have been in contact, and have been influenced by ancient Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, and Hellenic cultures, as well as modern movements such as the the Enlightenment and the rise of nationalism.

All Orthodox rabbis I have studied with, or whose books I have read, agree with this. They make such statements themselves. RK

Thus, 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."

This in no way is a refutation of any classical rabbinic teachings; in fact some Orthodox rabbis say the same thing. RK

According to critical historians, 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 polytheistic religions, humankind is often created by accident, and the gods are primarily concerned with their relations with other gods, not with people.

Ok, this is a section that many Orthodox rabbis would disagree with. RK

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 worshiping God. In comparison to other religions, Judaism elevates everyday life to the level of a temple, and worships God through everyday actions.

Many Orthodox rabbis themselves state exactly this. RK

This too is a section that many Orthodox rabbis would disagree with. RK

Many Orthodox rabbis themselves state exactly this! RK

Gefiltefish

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

Well, actually, there is an article on Gefilte fish.—iFaqeer | Talk to me! 22:05, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

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)

Well, if you talk about culturally significant, a Sunni Muslim like me from Pakistan and Nigeria by way of New Jersey would agree.—iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 05:15, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Karaite section

Yoshia, please bring proposed changes to the Karaite section here first. Thanks. Jayjg 05:40, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Talmidaism

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. --[[User:Sunborn|]] 16:42, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I assume you mean "Talmudism" but what does this mean? With the exception of Karaites all forms of Judaism today are forms of Rabbinic Judaism. Or are you referring to the split between Hasidim and Mitnagdim? I agree that these two distinctions need to be covered clearly in the article. Slrubenstein

Umm, if you accept the Christian scriptures, then you're a Christian. The only "Jewish" movements that accepted Jesus as a prophet/messiah were the old Ebionites, who died off.--Josiah 20:58, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That is why they consider themselves like the Ebionites. --The Sunborn

So "Talmidism" is not a mis-spelling of "Talmud?" I googled talmidism and got three hits; doesn't seem serious for any article -- and certainly not this one! Slrubenstein

Alright, if it is not a real religion, there goes my claim. Too much reliance on the Wikipedia is a bad thing I guess. It sounded too good to be true because that is what I believed when I believed in God, once upon a time. Thanks, --[[User:Sunborn|]] 23:05, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

From what I can tell it's a tiny internet movement of former Christians who still consider Jesus to be a prophet and use various edited Christian scriptures. They want to be considered Jews, and their religion part of Judaism, but I don't see why that desire makes it true in any way. Jayjg 01:09, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Quick Question on Sephardic Jews...

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)

The Sephardim came from Spain, which is rather farther from "the Holy Land" than southern Germany, where we first find identifiable Ashkenazim. The Khazars themselves may have contributed some input into Ashkenazi Jews, but the genetic evidence for this is weak, and the contribution in any event would be minor. Jayjg 18:42, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, Italqim (AKA Italiani, Bene Roma, etc.) is the European Jewish tradition with the strongest evidence of high proportions of Erets Yisraeli Jews. Many of these Italian Jews travelled to Southern France and the Iberian peninsula, and others ended up in SW Germany. I have done a fair bit of research on the liturgy of Western European Sephardim, and in connection with that also on the Italian and Ashkenazi traditions. Many of the characteristic traits of Italian Judaism are found in Western Ashkenazi traditions of SW Germany, that's true. But a high number of these traits are actually also found in the Castilian and Catalonian traditions. I have no problem agreeing that Western Ashkenazim are Erets Yisraeli to a relatively high degree. But the same goes for Western Sephardim! Eastern Ashkenazim show some pretty significant differences here (and local groups have been linked genetically to Iraqi Jewry, much the same way that this has been found for some Sephardi groups) -- as do also many other "Sephardi" traditions. Too little weight has been put on investigating the differences within the Ashkenazi traditions...

You might, BTW, want to look into the "Bené Hes" story and see what this tells us about south-western Germany's early Jews in a Sephardi / Western Ashkenazi / Eastern Ashkenazi perspective...

As for Spain being further from Israel than southern Germany is, that is not really true in an ancient world perspective, when boats were the easiest means of getting around... -- Olve 19:16, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Gzuckier is right in linking this story to the Khazars. Descendents of the Khazars seem to be a significant element amongst Eastern European Karaites, and to some relatively small degree also amongst Eastern Ashkenazim — but the rather controversial Dr. Wexler's theories of Ashkenazim being predominantly Khazar converts and Sephardim being predominantly Berber converts is more than a tad too farfetched — and agrees very badly to the available data. There has been various claims of specific origins of the Ashkenazim as a whole or the Sephardim as a whole. It is not true that Ashkenazim all or mostly came from Israel and Sephardim all or mostly came from Babylon. Neither is the opposite true. In reality, things are much more complicated. It can be summed up relatively simply: The current broad terms Sephardim and Ashkenazim each covers several groups of people with various proportions of Roman Era Israel, Babylon and the general Mediterranean in addition to a relatively small but over the centuries noticeable influx from other groups through conversion (quite frequent in some times and places) and occasional intermarriage, extramarital affairs or rapes.

-- Olve 16:29, 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.

Zoroastrianism

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?

Many historians suggest that Jewish concern with a struggle between good and evil, which emerged in literature written during the Babylonial exile, was strongly influenced if not inspired by Zoroastrian dualism. I don't have any sources offhand, but I think this is the origin to the claim. Slrubenstein

Order of Diaspora denominations

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)

These things are hard to know, but Reform is certainly the largest in the U.S. Anyway, the order now is more or less by age of the movement, which is another reasonable order. Jayjg 00:58, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New "Judaism stub" and "Israel stub"

Hi, welcome the new Wikipedia {{Judaism-stub}} Template:Judaism-stub [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Judaism-stub). There is also a new {{Israel-stub}} Template:Israel-stub [2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Israel-stub). Please use them when coming across relevant "stub" articles. Best wishes, IZAK 14:26, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Star of David

Isn't the star of david normally blue? Masterhomer 07:50, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Apparently Ed 2gs changed it last month because he felt as blue star wasn't "neutral". I've changed it back, as blue is common, and a black star has unpleasant associations. Jayjg 16:58, 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)

The Star of David is more of a cultural symbol. The menorah I'm not so sure about. Jayjg 06:30, 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.

The names of God in Judaism

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)

Abraham as first jew

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 get your point, but it is somewhat ... wrong. For one thing, the matrilineal rule didn't start until the time of the Amoraim, although it had earlier antecedants. Meaning, how a "Jew" is defined today is different from how it was defined int he past. Also, although I agree with you about the formative importance of the covenant at Sinai, clearly the Torah suggest that this was a formalazation and extension of the covenant made between God and Abraham. In any event, the reason Abraham was not a Jew is that Jews are descendants of Judah. It was only after the Northern Kingdom was conquered, and the Judeans emerged as the dominant remaining group, that people started to think of themselves as Jews. Before then, they were Israelites or Children of Israel. Slrubenstein 01:07, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean when you say that the matrilineal rule started from the amoraim? Do you have a source for that in the gemara? --Ezra Wax 03:57, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A fair question. Shaye J. D. Cohen 2001 The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties Berkeley: University of Californial Press ISBN 0520226933. By the way, it is possible I meant to write Tannaim, but I am pretty sure I got it right. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:22, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I looked up your source. It is his opinion that it is a second temple era innovation, but he does admit that there are those who disagree with him. The Haredi view is that matrilineal descent originates from Har Sinai, as can be seen from Rashi on the Chumash. --Ezra Wax 20:04, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

You did mean to write Tannaim. See Tractate Kiddushin (68b), where the rule of matrilineal descent is stated by Rabbi Yochanan in the name of Rabbi Shimon Ben Yochai. The format of the claim (mina'yin followed by a biblical source) is demonstrative that, at least, these Tannaim were claiming that matrilineal descent is a biblically derived. Furthermore, matrilineal descent is strongly implied in Deuteronomy (7:4). (Rashi was quoting the Talmud, not merely interpreting that the rule is biblically derived). In short: Either the Talmud was telling the truth, and matrilineal descent is a biblical rule (as all Orthodox scholars believe), or the rabbis of the Talmud were disingenuous and made up a rule while claiming it was of biblical origins. HKT 00:20, 9 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)

While your point is technically correct, Abraham is often considered the be the first Jew in Judaism, regardless of what the anon comment above states. See, for example, [3] (http://www.askmoses.com/qa_detail.html?h=195&o=37629) [4] (http://judaism.about.com/library/2_history/leaders/bldef-p_abraham.htm) [5] (http://www.aish.com/literacy/jewishhistory/Crash_Course_in_Jewish_History_Part_6_Isaac_and_His_Sons.asp) [6] (http://www.ujc.org.hk/DvarTorah-09-Nov-2004.pdf) [7] (http://www.ohrtorahstone.org.il/parsha/5764_printer/lekhlekha64_printer.htm) [8] (http://www.hillel.org/Hillel/NewHille.nsf/0/2A0E158F1C978EF285256B1700746169?OpenDocument) [9] (http://www.ohrtorahstone.org.il/parsha/5758/emor.htm) [10] (http://www.torah.org/learning/basics/israel-nutshell/chapter1.html) etc. I think that pretty much covers the spectrum of Jewish movements. Jayjg | (Talk)</sup> 03:28, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Archeological evidence for exile/slavery in Egypt, lack of same, deleted from intro today

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)

Alisha Ben Abuyah: help solicited

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)

You might want to read As a Driven Leaf by Milton Steinberg (Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0874411033/104-3394758-6717532)), which is a historical novel (quite good) about the life of Alisha (or Elisha) ben Abuyah. As for Talmudic cites, I can't help, sorry.--Goodoldpolonius2 03:26, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Are we sure it isn't Elisha? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:09, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your question. Both spellings are used in English. I believe that all of the appropriate redirects are in place. The choice of which to use in the article title seems pretty arbitrary to me, but if you have a good case for one being more common, I have no problem with the article being moved. That discussion should probably be there, not here. I'm just looking for someone to clean up the few Talmudic citations that were beyond me, and figured this was a more visible place to ask. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:17, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Elisha is vastly more common, as I've shown on Talk:Elisha ben Abuyah. I also answered your questions there. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:37, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I changed it to Elisha. "Alisha" is just wrong. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:23, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We do have a Wiki Project on Judaism articles

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism

Iran/Persia

In the historical context of this article, is it really appropriate to link "Persia" to Iran? -- Jmabel | Talk 06:29, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Probably not. And in my experience Persian Jews refer to themselves as Persian, not Iranian. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:05, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please check my article...

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)

Anarchic self-government?

"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)

non-sequiter

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)

You are correct. But I think this passage makes it clear that this view of a caring creator is a Jewish view. If you feel this point can be made more clearly, by all means do so, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Bravo, HKT. Your explains things much more clearly, and is a lot more accurate in describing polytheism.Putrescent stench 16:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Announcing a proposal concerning NPOV that may be of interest to contributors

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)

Anonymous user deleting Jewish Philosophy

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)

recent deletions by 62.253.64.14

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)

To make edits against consensus requires sources. To uphold the consensus sources are nice but not crucial. Zoroastrianism, by the way, is essentially dualist. JFW | T@lk 00:26, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your comment merely demonstrates my point. BTW modern Zoroastrianism is no more dualist than the Abrahamic religions. Earlier Zism included a monist tradition, Zurvanism. As for Zoroaster himself, the Zism article has for a long time stated that Zoroaster's writing suggest "devotional monotheism but metaphysical dualism" - with confidence in the final victory of Ahura Mazda. Paul B 10:37, 19 June 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Judaism"