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

Why the Unkosher Menorah?

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)

Anyone have their Talmud handy? I thought that the shamash having to be higher is a feature of the hannukiah. Does the same rule apply to the Temple menorah? The picture of the menorah on the frieze of Titus's arch shows all seven branches being of equal height and at the same level. Is it possible that whoever wrote the comment in question was thinking of a hannukiah and not a menorah? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I am removing the "unkoshe" comment hich I believe is wrong. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

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

No group (of which I'm aware) claims that Judaism predates Abraham, but this is irrelevant to the discussion. Belief in God is not exclusive to Judaism.

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)

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)

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)

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

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

Many Orthodox rabbis themselves state exactly this! RK

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)

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)

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, -- metta, The 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)

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.

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

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 will have to check my source, but one scholar suggested that Jewish monotheism (especially in the regular recitation of the Shema) emerged as a central element of Judaism in reaction against (perceived) Zoroastrianism dualism. But here, as in all cases, we have to comply with our Wikipedia: No original research policy. Please do add relevant material, but only if you can source it and it is not the conclusions of your own research. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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 star of david is basically a hexagram, though the term hexagram is often used in non-jewish contexts. hexagrams are used in satanism, which has well documented connections to neo-nazism. rather ironic...

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 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] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] etc. I think that pretty much covers the spectrum of Jewish movements. Jayjg | (Talk) 03:28, 12 Jan 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)

You might want to read As a Driven Leaf by Milton Steinberg ( Amazon), 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)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Judaism

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)

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)

I assume that this is referring to the period of time explained in the Book of Judges, when Israel (the people, not the land or the country) had no government, but was given guidance by a series of disparate judges. -- Spem 06:03, 4 August 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)

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)

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)

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)

No offense to JFW, but it doesn't matter if editing is against consensus or not - sources must be cited in the article. You might know your sources now, but if you die tomorrow (God forbid!) and someone wants to know where you have gotten this information from, you will not be able to say.

I just noticed this comment, incidently. The editor in question is myself, and if you carefully read what I wrote on the Zoroastrianism page I said that the first paragraph was blatant POV (it was) and the other paragraphs needed to be cited, because they used weasel words. From here I got accussed of trying to censor the article by Paul (at least, that's what was implied at the time) who also objected to me asking for sources for information that is not disputed by "most" scholars.

I do actually think that there is a place for adding at least a mention of Zoroastrianism to this article, but only with it properly sourced. - Ta bu shi da yu 10:31, 12 July 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)

Slrubentein, I have only just seen this comment. Please check what I wrote. I referred to the problem of systemic bias (which is not quite the same as "systematic bias"). The point concerns the bias that is part of the way a system works. Check the page on the subject. [11] It is not a personal comment, and at no point did I ever suggest that your interventions were not seriously or sincerely intended. In fact I went out of my way to emphasise that. Paul B 23:24, 10 Aug 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)

That should probably be started in the Beta Israel article, then perhaps summarized here. Jayjg ^(talk) 8 July 2005 17:42 (UTC)

All I know about the Ethiopian Jews is that they had a mass exodus from Ethiopia to Israel, with El Al planes which had their seats taken out. -- 210.9.188.178 00:54, 26 July 2005 (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

Hitbonenut. It is an important concept in Kabbalah and in Chasidic Judaism, although one can reasonable argue that a good deal of Jewish prayer (tefillah) is meditative. Jewish prayer is usually described as having two aspects: kavanah (intention, which is similar to mediative spirit) and keva (the ritualistic, structured elements). Beyond this, I cannot help you directly, but if you want the basic answers to your questions, look for a book on Jewish Meditation by Aryeh Kaplan. It is not long, and I think it is well-respected and thus a good source. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll look for the book, and in the meantime post this.

I seem to remember a lot of words used which carry the meaning of meditation, I cannot remember the details. But phrases such as "David knelt in front of the ark" (cant be sure of this, its a trace memory for what its worth) often in the original I seem to remember carry an implication of "meditated" too. So maybe look for other wordings which imply meditation? I also am sure Ive seen a book about judaism and meditation, but cannot think where. FT2 16:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

There are a number of words in the Bible that have been translated as meditate. Aleph Shin Het is one root, psalm 119:15 ("asichah"). Gimel Yud Gimel (I think) also, Psalm 5:2 ("hagigi"), but maybe the root is Gimel Yud Vav, see Psalm 19:15 ("hegyon"). In any event, these are two different Hebrew words (maybe three?) that have been translated as "meditate." But what do these words really mean? Contemplate? Reflect? What do we mean by "meditation?" In these psalms and elsewhere in the Bible and Jewish liturgy, the words glossed as "meditate" or "meditation" are used to refer to prayers. I think most English-speakers see prayer and meditation as fundamentally different activities, and so these words from the psalms may not really refer to whatever we mean by meditation. I think that for what we today call meditation, hitbonenut is probably the closest ... Slrubenstein | Talk 20:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Aleph Shin Het is one root, psalm 119:15 ("asichah"). Aleph Shin Het means woman, the root is actually Sin Yud Cheth, also seen in Genesis (24:63) by Isaac "lasuach basadeh". It means to talk quietly. The first occurence of the word is Gensis 2:5 where it is translated as "bush". The Midrash Rabbah has what to say on that. Contemporarily, a "sichah" is a speech given by a rabbi for focusing on moral adjustment. Psalm 5:2 is Shin Vuv Ayin, which means to cry, as a child calling its mother. Psalm 19:14 i do not know the shoresh (i can look it up when i get home in Sefer Hasharashim if you'd like) is usually translated as thoughts, but that may be because its is an adjective to the next word "my heart". It probably refers to mental activity. The standard word for prayer is "tefilah" which has the root of Pey Lamed Lamed which means to judge, (though perhaps one could say homiletically it is Nun Pay Lamed "to fall" which refers to bowing down in submission). "Amidah" is Ayin Mem Daleth with meands to stand. Genesis 25:21 is Ayin Tuv Resh which means to entreat. -- Chacham 17:47, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me, although I am pretty sure there is another shoresh associated with meditation involving a gimel. But perhaps you can add more to the substance of this discussion, which is, "what is Jewish meditation?" How is it different from prayer? Does the Talmud, or midrashim, or Jewish philosophers like Rambam or Saadia Gaon have discussions of "meditation" comparable to traditions of meditation in other cultures? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I thought I should check back here again, to see whether there were additional comments, and there are (for which I am again grateful). Not being very familiar with Judaica, I don't think I'm the right person to be summarizing them for the Meditation entry. (I paraphrased Slrubenstein's first response for that, but don't feel capable of integrating it with the new ones.) If someone feels confident and interested enough, please have a look at it--or even better, do a whole new entry for "Jewish meditation" so we can link to something more substantial.

On one hand we have issues of biblical interpretation (i.e., what does the Bible say about "meditation", and what do all the Hebrew words involved really mean?), but on the other, the practical issue of whether some current Jewish practice or practices can be called "Jewish meditation." I suggest focusing on the latter. (While praxis is surely rooted in scripture, it seems likely that some of Chacham's biblical readings would be seen as obscure within most Jewish contexts, no?)

On another tangent, it seems that "Kabbalah" is all the rage these days, with Madonna doing it and all. Are they doing anything unusual ("meditation"-wise) by Jewish standards? I remember reading in Mosche Idel's book that there used to be practices involving weeping (for the Temple, I think). Is that still done these days? Other stuff that's very different from the mainstream?

Peace out, --Dawud

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)

Thank you! I haven't made any changes to the entry on Meditation, so please do so if you think it needs revising.

About Kabbalah, an encyclopedia should be descriptive, not prescriptive, so if there are enough wicked souls who practice Kabbalistic meditation in the wrong way, some mention of their activity should be made. (As I recall Madonna is both married and over forty, though in other ways she may not fit the Kabbalistic "target demographic"!)--Dawud

I agree with you in principle and in practice. The article should provide an account of untroditional, popular, or commercial uses of "Kabbalah." Slrubenstein | Talk 19:18, 6 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

• FWIW, I have mixed feelings about this. I personally don't consider Messianic Judaism part of Judaism, but I don't think the case is clearcut. I think just inclusion in an external links list makes no judgment on the matter and we should have the link. When you say "Judaism holds that the messiah has not come yet": that's a little tricky. After all, assuming that at some point a messiah comes and is acknowledged, do the Jews (word used in the religious sense here and in the following) then cease to be Jews if they acknowledge him? This is, of course, exactly what Christians claim has already happened. Now, clearly mainstream, Gentile Christians are in no sense Jews, but, for example, did Jesus's followers cease to be Jews the moment they decided he was the messiah? I would think not: they ceased to be Jews when they ceased, in general, to practice Judaism. A case could be made that Messianic Judaism creates a parallel situation. Again, I don't agree with that position, but I think it is a respectable position. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I think there are two issues here. One, a formal issue: we can say that Messianic Jews identify themselves as Jews (or identify their beliefs as a form of Judaism) and that is accurate and NPOV. However, what defines a Jew and Judaism are not matters of individual choice. Identities are public and depend on a degree of public recognition (e.g. there are or have been in Montana groups of people claiming to be independent of the USA. They can claim that, but few if any accept their claims and that sometimes leads them to be killed or put in jail). Second, the substantive issue: Jmabel suggests that there are some circumstances under which Messianic Jews may be Jews. This is possible, but the first century analogy does not hold because Judaism has changed in the past two thousand years and I think every other formal movement of Judaism would agree that belief that Jesus is God is enough to make one at the very least a heretic (Apikorus). But my question: do messianic Jews really obey Jewish law? If a messianic Jew is born of a Jewish mother, is circumcized (if a man), obeys Jewish law (kashrut, shabbat, prays three times a day) and &mdah; most important, in my opinion, circumcizes his sons according to the Jewish ritual, then would other Jews accept them as Jewish? I can't say for sure but I think it is possible. Does anyone know if Messianic Jews have the brit milah performed on their sons? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:40, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

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))

How would you explain the difference between Judaism and Christianity? We know what they have in common: a relationship with God, and with the Hebrew Bible. But what makes them different? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Belief about the Messiah.

Jewish Christians and Gentile(non-jewish) Christians believe the Messiah has already come to atone or forgive sin, and there by offering eternal salvation to all who accept it. They then believe the Messiah will Return a second time to wrap up History and gather those who have accepted him from the first time. The Bible says all Isreal (Jews collectively) will be saved. I don't know how this is supposed to be accomplished; the Bible doesn't specify.

Most jews(non-Messianic or non-Christian Jews or traditional Jews don't believe the Messiah has come yet. They believe, he is to come in the future and will destroy the enemies of God and set up Gods Kingdom, among other things. (This is what the Christians call the Second Coming or the second coming of the Messiah. ( J. D. Hunt 18:34, 3 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)

I am opposed to deteling it, not because I put it in, but for the reasons I put it in. You are making a different point that Boyarin. You are making a critique of categories like race and nation and religion and I agree with your critique 100%. But that itself is an academic point (not meaning that it is unimportant, only that it is a point that mostly academics talk about). People may use the word "German" to be a race or a nation, and the way they use the word may, from an academic point of view, be wrong or sloppy. Be that as it may, no matter how wrong they may be in an academic sense, most people think that they are using racial, national, ethnic terms consistently. But Boyarin's point is that most people — not academics, but non-academics — have either found it very hard to aplly these terms they otherwise use so easily, to Jews — or, when they do, Jews go ahead and do something that upsets their (the non-Jews) understanding of what the Jews are ("You are a religion, so why do you say x;" or "You are a race, so y is not important."

Be that as it may, the Boyarin quote does not violate any Wikipedia policy and he is a very, very well-regarded scholar. The views of an important Jewish scholar on Jewish history and culture is worth inclusing in the article. Of course, I do not object to moving it to a different place in the article. However, since Boyarin is summing up an issue that has been an important part of Jewish life in the West since the Middel Ages, I think it makes sense to keep it in the intro. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't intend to turn this into a policy dispute. My problem is that I don't think Boyarin is "summing up" anything very well at all, and that his celebrity cachet doesn't make up for the clumsiness of his point. We'd be better off rewording it ourselves. -- April Arcus 17:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I did not say that he is a celebrity, I said he is an important Jewish scholar. It is not a very long quote; we would have to cite him anyway. I see no reason at all to get rid of it. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I think this quote is a good summary of the point, and draws on a reputable source. I'd say keep it. -- Goodoldpolonius2 20:21, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I've just read this article for the first time and I like the quote too. I also say keep it. Pintele Yid 00:03, 6 November 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)

I, for one, object. This is hairsplitting. When one associates a religion and a people, it doesn't mean that 100% of the people subscribe to the religion. Just like is is reasonable to refer to the Croats as a Catholic people and the Serbs as an Eastern Orthodox people, it doesn't mean you couldn't somewhere find a Uniate Croat or a Buddhist Serb. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I also object -- Judaism is certainly the religion of the Jewish people, in that no one other than Jews practice Judaism, by definition. Additionally, the phrase says the "Jewish people," and, to echo Jmabel, this should make it clear that we are talking populations. -- Goodoldpolonius2 07:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Object, as per Jmabel and GOP. Anything else is spin. JFW |  T@lk 07:35, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. And, this is one of the reasons the Boyarin quote is important. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

What on earth is a Christian Jew??

In early Christianity, as I'm sure you're aware, Jesus and all his apostles were Jews. However these early "Christian Jews" (or perhaps more precisely, "Jewish Christians") quickly broke with tradition (that's an understatement if there ever was one!) and began proselytizing Gentiles. You have to remember that in its very early days, Christianity had barely established and distinguished itself as a religion of its own, and could (and was) easily considered to be merely a Jewish sect. So at this early stage, and perhaps a few centuries afterward, it was possible to distinguish between a Jewish Christian, meaning a Jew who followed the teachings of Jesus, and a Gentile Christian, meaning a non-Jewish convert to Christianity. Of course today, it is virtually impossible to find a person who can prove direct decent from these very few early "Jewish Christians" due to the overwhelming Gentile influence, and so Christians today are referred to (and they indeed refer to themselves) as Gentiles. Loomis51 15:50, 14 April 2006 (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) .

Please sign your posts at talk with ~~~~. I reverted your inflammatory text. See WP:NOR and other WP:RULES. ← Humus sapiens ←ну? 10:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me of these guidelines. - ~~~~

YAW. To auto-sign, try no tags, just four tildes. ← Humus sapiens ←ну? 10:51, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It's actually hard to imagine a less appropriate edit, short of deliberate vandalism. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:02, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

Agree. ← Humus sapiens ←ну? 11:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, typography gone bad. -- Goodoldpolonius2 19:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, it is annoying, but I can't think of anything better. How about a table? Izehar 19:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

How about back to how it was? Like the rest of Wikipedia? -- Jmabel | Talk 04:18, 24 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.

The Jewish prophets are the ones in the Bible, of course. Why should they accept a non-Jewish prophet? Do you suggest the article should state explicitly that they only accept the word of the Jewish prophets? Sounds a bit like stating the obvious. JFW |  T@lk 05:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

I changed it to "traditional", since I think that the section does describe the traditional view -- which one could hold as a member of various Orthodox groups or the Conservative movement (though is probably, admittedly, still most widely held in mainstream Orthodoxy). Savant1984 06:46, 28 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:

These groups are viewed highly negatively by all Jewish denominations, which typically see them as covert and deceptive attempts to convert Jews to Christianity, a view Messianic-Jewish groups strongly contest in the public,

someone added

but which has been shown to be true according to private documents released by ex-Missionaries.

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.

To say that the Shulchan Aruch is the one and only code of Jewish law is quite disturbing. As a Conservative/Orthodox Jew, I regard the only true source of Jewish law as the Torah, in both its oral and written form. The written Torah is simple to identify, it's the Tanach. The oral Torah is more difficult to describe. It was meant to be oral and continuously debated, but for emergency purposes, facing an imminent diaspora, it was put into writing in the Mishna, which was later elaborated upon in the Gemarrah.

Still, the oral Torah should be continuously debated. That I believe is how it originally existed before the compilation of the Mishnah, and is what I believe to be the true spirit of Judaism. It is also why, altough raised in the Orthodox tradition, I began to be of the opinion that Orthodox Judaism has strayed too far from the true spirit of Judaism in "closing the book" so to speak, on further discourse. Putting the laws of Judaism down in a code written centuries ago by one Rabbi, and following it letter for letter to me is not the way Judaism was meant to be practiced, and indeed I find it very disturbing that one should state simply: "Jews have one Code of Law. The Shulchan Aruch". It almost seems like some Orthodox Jews are putting the Shulchan Aruch on a higher level than the actual Torah, which is extremely disturbing, as is the fact that Reb made no reference to the actual Torah as being the ultimate source of Jewish Law. All this is not to denigrate the value of the Shulchan Aruch, it is, indeed, a splendid distillation of Jewish Law as it had developed to that point. But to forever close the book and declare it as the authoritative source of Jewish Law is just plain wrong to me. The Torah was meant to be continuously debated, and any attempts to "close the book" on Jewish Law are, at the very least, misguided. Loomis51 16:23, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

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)

That's a legitimate viewpoint for the most part, Reb, but Wikipedia has to be a bit more impartial than that. Those "labels" indicate how people think about and apply Judaism -- halacha and aggadah. What counts as halachic conversion? These kinds of things are all relevant and controversial. In particular, saying that the Shulchan Aruch is the definitive code of Jewish law is very controversial. There are several others one could easily favour -- Rambam's Mishneh Torah comes to mind -- and one can very plausibly reject the idea that there is or can be a universally definitive code. Finally, I'd point out that under Jewish law, a Jew who becomes a Christian is still a Jew ("a Jew who sins is still a Jew") though certainly an apostate, and his "Judaism" is really Christianity. -- Savant1984 00:57, 22 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)

Agree. It is highly debatable what reach the term "ultra" has. From the POV of the average outsider, most Haredim would be called Ultra anyway. JFW |  T@lk 03:34, 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

You seem, as do the authors you're quoting, to be laboring under some deeply misguided delusions about the rôle of "satan", "messiah", and a great many other things, in Judaism. Cheers, Tom e r ^talk 10:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

This would be something for the "critical historical" section. It is based on a ridiculously literal reading of the Biblical idiom, but never mind. Do you have a source to support your suggestion? JFW |  T@lk 10:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

How is this idea "based on a ridiculously literal reading of the Biblical idiom"? -- 24.225.247.157 14:00, 20 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)

Thank you - in the article on monolatrism, there is a link to henotheism; and as their definitions appeared to me very similar, I was unsure which would be applicable. In hindsight, I see that henotheism is already mentioned in the section I was reading! -- 24.225.247.157 14:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Is the word "monolytheistic," used in the article, supposed to be monolaristic? Or polytheistic? monotheistic? It obviously matters for the sentence, but I can't tell what the right term should be. (And if it is "monolytheistic," what does that mean?) Thanks. Still A Student 04:59, 31 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)

It actually seems quite relevant to the previous paragraph, wihch is about the emergence of monotheism and its interpretation as much as about Rabbinic Judaism. That the evidence is hardly new seems to me an argument for including it in an encyclopedia. I'm not adding it back, because I don't have the expertise. But if the Uggaritic evidence is on this point, it would be helpful to include. Whoever originally added it should clarify. Still A Student 14:52, 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

I assume that you mean "Is there an area or a town in Eastern Europe where a lot of Jews are living today?" It's all a matter of what you count as Eastern Europe (and what you count as "a lot"). Budapest has quite a large Jewish population (I'm not sure of the number, but it's in the low six figures). And there are still quite a few cities in Russia with quite large Jewish populations, but it's harder to get solid numbers. You might find some interesting information at [13]. - Jmabel | Talk 06:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

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.