Talk:Relationships between Jewish religious movements/Archive 1

This article seems to say that "hatespeech" (one word) is equivalent to voicing religious views which are not pluralistic. Is this what is intended? Wesley

Nonsense. Nowhere in the article is anything like that said or implied. I can't even begin to understand what part of the article can be interpreted in this way. Wesley, if someone slanders you as a Nazi or as a sinful hater of God, that's pretty much the clearest possible example of hatespeech there is; and that is the kind of thing we are dealing with here. If someone comes to your church and beat up Christians in prayer, calling them whores and the like, that is a hateful (and violent) act. Well, this is precisely the kind of situation we are dealing with here (including many attacks on non-Orthodox Jews who were merely praying). How can you call physical assaults and virulent hatespeech merely "voicing religious views which are not pluralistic" ? I can't believe that you find these to be the same. RK

I know almost nothing about the topic besides what is in the article. What led me to ask the question was the mention of religious pluralism in the opening sentence, and the following statement following a quote by some ultra-Orthodox Jews: This statement, and those like, are considered to be incitement and hatespeech by all non-Orthodox Jews, and by many Modern Orthodox Jews. (Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. January/February 2001, p.71-72) From what I could tell, the statement essentially said that only ultra-Orthodox Jews were true followers of Judaism, thus adopting a ver exclusive stance rather than a pluralistic one. That made me think that perhaps that was what qualified it as hatespeech. Of course I don't mean to condone or excuse violent assaults in any way, and I apologize if I gave the appearance of doing so. Wesley

---

'The following discussion has been moved here from The war against Reform and Conservative Judaism'

Okay, in my opinion this is not an article but the kind of essay that belongs on a personal website, or on some list-serve. Wikipedia is not a forum for presenting personal opinions. In any event:

What is the historical evidence that Reform Judaism was motivated primarily by a belief that assimilation would help protect Jews from Anti-Semitism? My sense is that it was in part a reflection of a general European movement (as part of the Enlightenment) that reconsidered the relationship between religion as such and society in general, and was also motivated by Jewish desires to take advantage of new cultural, political, and economic opportunities. To identify the way European Jews lived in the 17th or 16th centuries with the way Jews lived a few thousand years ago is at best anachronistic. In any event, a claim like this must be supported by good historical research.

I have to agree with the initial claim. Some of the founders of Reform Judaism in Germany taught that Jews brought anti-Semitism on themselves by their "primitive" practices, and they preached that Jews could end most anti-Semitism if only they assimilated and lived by many of the practices of their German Protestant Christian bretheren. Many of the 19th century classic German Reformers were almost breathless in their pronouncements about the benefits of assimilation and the end of anti-Semitism. Sadly, most of their great-children were killed by their own country a few decades later during the Holocaust. As modern day Reform Judaism has taught since its turnaround in the 1950s, Jewish laws and customs didn't cause hatred against Jews; anger and intolerance did. This doesn't mean that I agree with everything else in the article, but this point is true, ebem though it is painful to accept to modern day 21st century Jews. Much of what the founders of Reform Judaism taught might today be seen as almost anti-Semitic, especially when some of their leaders spewed hateful attacks on traditional Jews are "barbarians" for the "sin" of circumcision. Reform Judaism, not to put too fine a point on it, was born in a full blown assault against all forms of historic and traditional Judaism. In contrast, the type of Reform Judaism that we see today is in many ways a very different phenomenon. (This needs to be made clear.)

See Michael A. Meyer's A Response to Modernity: A History of the Reform Movement in Judaism, Wayne State Univ Press, 1995, 510 pages (Orig. pub. by Oxford Univ. Press, 1988) for an insiders's view. Prof. Meyer is a teacher at the Reform movement's Hebrew Union College in Cinncinati. RK

Similarly, it is silly to claim that Jews prior to the Enlightenment were not, or did not seek to be, influenced by non-Jews. The book of Judges and Samuel and many of the prophets testify that this has been going on a long time. For example, for a long time Jews did not have kings. According to the book of Samuel, Jews ended up having kings precisely because they wanted to be like other nations. this is purely evidence from within the text. A good deal of historical scholarship shows how much Jews have learned from (and been influenced by) other cultures. Slrubenstein

Exactly. This article needs to be significantly rewritten, or removed. GABaker

Well, before the Enlightenment Jews never sought to be influenced by gentiles. They were influenced, of course, as every culture influences those that interact with it. However it was only after the Enlightenment that German Jews decided to end most of their practices to better fir into the surroundedin Christian population. They seem pretty clear about this in their speeches and books of the timeperiod.

My turn. Ezra, this is absolute nonsense, plain and simple. First, I apologize to anyone reading this if I lapse into terminology that I do not explain. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Second, let's start with the ridiculous claim that ever since Abraham Jews thought they were a light unto nations. An odd claim indeed, particularly since the word Jew is derived from Judah, who was a great-grandson of Abraham, i.e., Abraham was not a "Jew" (nor was he an Israelite, because Israel was just another name for his grandson, Jacob). As for not adopting other cultures, you are probably basing this on the Rashi in Shemot (a commentary on Exodus) shelo shinu shmam, et leshonam, ve-et malbusham (quoting from memory here, so give me some space--the Israelite were redeemed from Egypt because they did not change their names, their language, and their clothing). Pure aggadata (Jewish legend created for educational purposes but with no factual basis--see the Maharal on using aggadata). In other words, Moshe (Moses) did have an Egyptian name, the same root son that appears in Ramses, Thutmose, etc. Care to explain Uriah the Hittite, Solomon and the Queen of Sheba or the daughter of Pharaoh? Let's move on. Hwat are the names of the Jewish months--they are not biblical. In the Bible months are given numbers, just like the days of the week. There is a month named Ziv, but we do not use that name anymore. Instead, the names used are taken from Babylonia: Tammuz is a Babylonian deity (okay, it's Marcheshvan now, and that is actually a numerical one, but it is the only one out of the 12/13 months that still has a number). As for the Hebrew script, did you ever learn the gemara in Megillah (everyone does it in bekius) about ktav Ashuri (the "modern" Assyrian script which replaced the ancient Hebrew script). Moving right along, Yiddish is hardly a Semitic language. It is Germanic. For that matter, most of the Talmud and even some of the Bible is written in Aramaic (and I don't mean yegar sahadutha), the language of Babylonia. Names? Yentl's etymology is from the Spanish Juanita, Feivel's etymology is from the Greek Phoebus. And what exactly is Zvi Hirsch if not "deer" repeated in Hebrew and German. Now let's hit dress. Where in any source--be it Gemara, Rishonim, Achronim, or Shutim--does it say Jews have to wear black? Shtreimels (the fur hats worn by hassidic Jews) originated where? The kapata is exactly what it sounds like, a caftan, itself a European article of clothing. Yes, the Chasam Sofer went to war against what he perceived as assimilation (I prefer the word acculturation myself), but you cannot rewrite history. He decided to try to put a stop to the historical development of Judaism, leaving it to stagnate in the eighteenth century. In many ways, he was like the Tzedukim (Sadducees) you mentioned in some previous posting, in their rejection of the Perushim (Pharisees, in the sense that they were liberal reformers). Please revise the article before I go off on some of the other innacuracies you present. Danny

Let's not forget Esther (Ishtar) and Mordecai (Marduk). But with all due respect, Danny, I do not think such facts will affect Ezra one way or the other. This simply is not an article, it is an ignorant polemic. I won't be the one to delete it, but I really can't imagine it lasting more than a week here. Slrubenstein

Now that you mention it, the name Ezra is Aramaic too. Danny

---

The article in question:

A movement started which espoused the idea that if Jews modified the way they dressed and acted and changed their customs, then they would be more acceptable to the non-Jewish world. This movement said that Jews should study non-Jewish culture, participate in non-Jewish social circles, and modify their values to fit in with those of the non-Jewish world around them.

This was a very seductive idea. Jews started becoming less and less Jewish. First they would do one thing and then another, until they started intermarrying with the general society and losing their Jewish identity entirely.

This flew in the face of Judaism. From the time of Abraham Jews have considered themselves to be a light among the nations. Jews viewed it as their destiny in this world to live according to the rule of God and to show the rest of the world that that is indeed the way to live.

Jews had always lived among the nations and had to deal with them. They at times even had to accomodate themselves to them, and often did so to the detriment of their religious lives.

However, when it became an ideal to emulate the non-Jewish culture, the champions of Judaism felt it imperative to fight back. They fought a war of words and ideas. They cut off contact with those whose espoused integration into non-Jewish culture as an ideal. They forbade participation in organizations that recognized the validity of those ideas.

This is in part the story of Chanuka. Many Jews were influenced by the Hellenistic culture. They supported laws that forbade the practice of the most essential elements of Judaism. The Maccabees fought back as champions of Judaism. They were under attack, so they fought back under the banner of Mi Comocha Baeilim Hashem - MaCcaBY (Hashem is used in place of the four letter name of God that starts with a Y). This phrase translates into : Who is like you among all the powers, Hashem (The eternal one.)

In the same spirit, when Moses Mendelsohn and his followers championed new ideals the other Jewish leaders of the time took the only actions they viewed as effective.

One of the leaders of the fight against his ideas was Rabbi Moshe Sofer popularly known by the title of his work Chasam Sofer. He championed the breaking away of all those who were concerned about the purity of Judaism, from their old synagogues. He felt that the old synagogues were not firm in their opposition to the ideas that were damaging to Judaism. He felt that these ideas were too seductive and the only way to guard Judaism against them was with a zero tolerance policy.

He viewed the ideas as virulent and that once even the smallest part of them was accepted, it would corrupt all of the Judaism of the individual. There were those who were willing to accept the status quo. They felt they could live with the ideas and it would not harm them. The Jewish controversy regarding Zionism goes along a similar vein. Many Zionists are of the opinion that Jews should be a nation just like all the other nations and the choice of Israel as a homeland is just the most logical choice because it is the traditional choice of the Jews. As such whether Jews were religious or not, they could support a Jewish state.

Rabbi Avraham Kook the first Chief Rabbi of Israel was of the opinion that a Zionism and Judaism were compatible. However, Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum the Rabbi of Satmar, was of the opinion that any group that can include non-Religious idealists cannot be legitimate. To this day there are many religious Jews in Israel that refuse to vote or participate in the government. They believe that any acknowledgement of the legitimacy of the government is support of an ideal that does not include God in it is rebelling against God's rule and there is nothing worse than that.

There are religious Jews who participate in the government. They view the government as something that is there and that if they do not participate in it, then the government will make decisions that are detrimental to them. Therefore they do not view participation in the government as supporting the ideals of some of its founders, and rather they view it as taking care of their interests. The view of those opposed to participation in the government is similar to the opinion of Rabbi Moshe Sofer. They view any association with people who deny any of the fundamentals of Judaism as dangerous.

---

There are some painful truths about the birth of Reform Judaism in Germany in this proposed entry. However, this proposal doesn't make clear the difference between classic German Reform, and the Reform movement today. Further, it is written without references to any specific leaders, doctrines, documents, or speeched, and is without sources. Worse, it is polemical and not NPOV. Finally, the entry is just one man's dvar Torah against assimilation, which does no scholarly good to anyone, and does not belong in a non-religious encyclopaedia. If specific information needs to be added, then add it where it belongs, in the entry that already exists on Reform Judaism. RK

---

I will not deny that this essay is in a great part polemic. Once again I wrote this article in response to another page. I did not wish to go into the other page and edit it, so I wrote something in response.

To SLR: I have quoted charges made against Reform and Conservative Judaism. I could have been more detailed and specific and then it would have qualified less as polemic. The views that you mentioned are valid views from the other side.

As far as your charge from the crowning of Saul: As you well know, the Jewish people were criticized for wanting to be like the other nations by Samuel. Being that that is a criticism, it is clear that God disapproved of it. In Deuteronomy God states the laws of kings. Samuel's charge against the Jews was not that they wanted a king, but that they wanted a king in order to be like the nations of the world. Having a king is fine if it is for the right reason.

To Danny: When saying that the Jews since the time Abraham were meant to be a light unto the nations. I am referring to the elucidation on the words Avraham Haivri. Of course one expalanation for those words is Avraham from the tribe of Ever, but another explanation is that Avraham was on one side of the world and everyone else was on the other. This is because Avraham was the only champion of Monotheism in other words the only champion of God.

In addition it says quite explicitly in the Genesis that God made a covenant with Abraham because he knew that Abraham would teach his children and grandchildren to follow after him. I found your explanations for many of the names quite interesting, but I have to admit that I hadn't heard of many of them before. In any case, the problem is not being like the nations in order to make your life easier, i.e. to take on a name that will be easier for non-Jews to use. The problem is taking on a new name in order to forsake your Jewish identity. In any case, I regret making this page. I felt it was necessary as a first draft, but I feel that I would be better served by editing the page it is in response to. In consequence I have renamed that other page, and hope to gradually modify it to make it more balanced. Ezra Wax

---

Ezra Wax recently rewrote a statement to now say "While, this statement, and those like, would be considered incitement by most, if not all, non-Orthodox Jews, and by many Modern Orthodox Jews, Ultra-Orthodox Jews would consider it a defense of Judaism."

Despute the last week of disagreements, I wish to point out that I agree with this change. I think it is accurate, and NPOV. It explains who holds each view, and why. I also agree with some of Ezra's other ideas for additions to the Wikipedia, and they hold promise if they similarly can be rewritten in an NPOV fashion like this. RK

I appreciate this comment, and RK's comment on the Torah Judiasm article. It seems to me that the larger story is the way modernity created a crisis that called into question what Judaism is and what it means to be a Jew, and how; and has produced or exacerbated divisions among Jews. This is not unique to Jews, I think it characterizes the situation of most Indigenous peoples and some would even say that is just the crisis of modernity. Although I think that my view reflects my own committment to the Enlightenment project, and might thus be more acceptable to Reform and Conservative Jews and unacceptable to Torah Jews, I am sure that there are plenty of non-Ultra Orthodix Jews who would object to seeing their views as products of circumstances not under their control, and a reflection of a situation they actually share with ultra Orthodox Jews. I agree with RK that Ezra Wax is coming from a sincere place, an I hope that the Wikipedia process helps turn his contributions into something more appropriate for this project. I know Conservative and Reform Jews who despise and are disgusted by ulra Orthodox Jews and Judaism -- perhaps the contemporary Reform and Conservative movement leaders are not so guilty of divisive invective, but many of the membership are. I just hope that the current process will not lead just to mutual toleration, but even understanding... I believe that the goal of an article such as this one would be to provide a historically accurate and useful framework for such an understanding, because partisanship aside it is an important historical and sociological issue Slrubenstein

I am more than a little perturbed by seeing quotes by me inserted into this article to justify a polemic. What are you trying to say: that in that particular world, vitriolic language is legitimate, so when writing about that world you can introduce polemics. I am taking my quotes out. They are out of context here, and I sure don't want my personal history posted like this. Those quotes were part of a long, sometimes bitter debate between RK and me, which has since been resolved. You can certainly paraphrase them, but that is still no excuse to introduce a page of religious rhetoric as a means of espousing your POV. We are trying to be NPOV here. Danny

---

To say this again: Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of Judaica. Articles are here to educated Jews and non-Jews alike. Please, please, PLEASE write NPOV and explain how this article fits into the grand scheme of things.--GABaker

I agree in part--it must be NPOV; but there is no reason why a topic should not be covered merely because only Jews would be interested in it (Wikipedia is not paper). The solution (this is directed to Ezra, not to you), is to improve the article, not delete all the text and label it "Racist drivel". -- Mon.

---

I have locked the page to stop the edit war. If another sysop wants to unlock it, they can. --Ed Poor

If you disagree with a particular edit, please copy a paragraph (or more) to talk before you revert the change, and comment on it. I believe that through discussion we can find a way to accommodate conservative, Orthodox and ultra-Orthodx points of view. --Ed Poor

Ed, why did you revert it to Ezra's version before locking it? Shouldn't you revert it to the version before Ezra deleted almost all the factual content from the article? Have you seen the history how he has been deleting the article totally? -- 137.111.13.32 22:19 Oct 31, 2002 (UTC)

---

Ezra's version of the article, compared with the previous one, is awful. The previous one contained quotes of statements from different groups, and references to actual historical events. Maybe they were presented in a less than most NPOV fashion, but the solution is to change the presentation, not remove the factual content. Ezra's version is nothing but saccharine empty talk. Statements like "Jews sometimes have a hard time getting along." are not encyclopedic. Now Ed can we revert it to the original version? --- 137.111.13.32 22:23 Oct 31, 2002 (UTC)

Jews sometimes have a hard time getting along. They feel very strongly about their points of view and will use very strong language to get their point across.

Sometimes the people that this language is directed against take it very personally. Sometimes people provoke other people and cause them to use strong language which they then take offense at.

The Talmud states that the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed because the Jews could not get along. All Jews hope that they will be able to get along with each other.

---

I don't know much about this subject and consider myself to be completely neutral about it, but -- text of [22:12 Oct 31, 2002 . . Ed Poor (reverting to Ezra Wax's version)] is awful; merely an expression of personal opinion and not an encyclopedia article.

---

Somewhat as Anonymous (137.111.13.32) requested, I reverted the article. However, what Ezra wrote looks true to me. It matches my own experience as a Jewish man, as well as the online "behavior" I've seen today. So I did a merge instead of a revert. Also, I decided to leave the article unprotected.

However, if people start deleting each other's work without explanation again... I dunno what to do. --Ed Poor

---

Thank you Ed for putting the content back. I suppose I can live with Ezra's contribution as an introduction, although it could be rewritten in a more formal style of English; and the comment about the destruction of the Temple probably belongs either elsewhere, or in its historical context (i.e. discussion of relationships in ancient Israel) -- 137.111.13.32 22:51 Oct 31, 2002 (UTC)

Nu? So rewrite it already. I give free bagels to all comers, but you have to bring your own lox :-) --Ed Poor

---

The article states "Orthodox Rabbis point out the high rate of intermarriage of Non-Orthodox Jews and want to know where Judaism will end up at this rate."

This is obviously polemical, and contains no information. It is an Orthodox attack against non-Orthodox Jews. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, nor a propaganda peice.

The article stated "Non-Orthodox Leaders proclaim that they have the right to be part of the religious leadership in Israel. The Orthodox Rabbis in Israel are furious at this intrusion. They believe the destruction in the rest of the world is bad enough, it does not have to be brought to Israel as well."

This is hatespeech. Jewish people merely believe that all Jews have equal rights, and that it is wrong for Ultra-Orthodox Jews to have absolute control over all Jews, and to deny every other Jew equal rights. Why is objection to this bigotry suddenly turned around into a claim that non-Orthodox Judaism is now "destruction in the rest of the world" ?! This is the kind of violence-inciting hatespeech that Adolph Hitler used to incite his nation to kill all the Jews. And this is what Ezra Wax is also saying about all Jews in the world, except for the tiny percent that is in his own small sect, the Ultra-Orthodox. RK

Ezra Wax, in a fit of violent lying, wrote this hatespeech "Non-Orthodox denominations stage protests at holy sites such as the Kotel, by arranging prayer groups that many Orthodox Jews find provocative. Some Orthodox youths find the desecration of their holy site intolerable and retaliate by desecrating the sites of the non-Orthodox groups."

Wikipedia readers should be aware that no such event ever happened. This is a complete and total fabrication, used by a handful of Ultra-Orthodox fanatics to incite their followers to violence against all other Jews. Sadly - as is well documented in the article iteself - this incitement to violence does work, and Ultra-Orthodox Jews now are physically attacking non-Orthodox Jews. Seeing anti-Semitic incitement from Nazis is bad enough. To see it from someone who claims to be a Jew is worse. RK

---

"[Relationship between segments of Judaism; 01:21 . . Ezra Wax (You may not remove this information.]" -- I consider myself completely neutral on the contents of this article and am not editing it, but of course "we" (anybody) may remove this information. That's the way Wikipedia works.

I agree. As an atheist, I couldn't care less about the reasons religious sects invent to discriminate against one another. However, as a writer and one who takes both Wikipedia and the NPOV seriously, I think Ezra's being a little highhanded here. Who is he to tell the community that we "may not remove this information"? Even if he was the High Holy Rabbi himself, why should I -- or anyone -- care? If he wants to post The Truth, let him do it on his own website. -- Stormwriter.

---

RK: I agree with you mostly, but I think maybe rewording Ezra's changes into a rebuttal would be more productive than merely deleting what he says... e.g. how I took his rebuttal text, and reworded it to make it more neutral... I may not have done a perfect job, feel free to try your hand at improving it, but lets keep it there for now... -- Mon.

---

Just so you folks know, the link to "examples of hate speech against Conservative Jews" is a broken link as well as being NPOV. --FOo

---

I have some serious reservations about the section on Conservative Judaism -- but I defere to RK, who has been doing a lot of good work on this page, as well as Danny. I know the Tradition and Change book was authoritative in its day, but I think Conservative theorists have had a number of ways of articulating their position besides striking a balance between "tradition" (identified as Orthodoxy) and "change" (identified as Reform. One may (and I believe many Conservative scholars have) argue that both Orthodoxy and Reform emerged out of the Enlightenment, and had in common the emphasis on Judaism as a religion. Both are "modern" and new, and both constructed a mythology of Jewish tradition to legitimize their positions (Reform as breaking with it, Orthodoxy as embracing it). Also, I recall (but too vaguely for me to put this in the article itself unilaterally) the claim that Orthodoxy had created a charicature of authentic Judaism through its excessive concern with codification (anyone remember the Kitzur Shulhan Aruch?) -- but that Conservative Judaism represented a return to the spirit of the Amoraim, a time when Jewish legal processes embrased divergent views and pluralism. I'd like to know what RK and Danny (and others, of course) think of this, but if there is any sense to this, please change the section on Conservative Judaism accordingly, Slrubenstein

Actually, I haven't touched the Conservative Judaism article as far as I remember. I actually think that everyone constructed mythologies of Jewish tradition to legitimize their positions: Orthodox, Reform, and Conservative. As for a return to the "spirit of the Amoraim" that is about as legitimate a claim as the Reform claim that they are in the spirit of the prophets and the Orthodox claim that they are carrying out a tradition handed down at Sinai, i.e., silly (I would have said BS, but I don't wanna offend anyone--whoops, I said it). Every denomination is a response to the exigencies of the day. Oh, yeah, and regarding the Kitzur, in the yeshivas I attended, it was generally referred to as a "Hungarian minhag book," i.e., quaint but not authoritative. And now to fix ultra-Orthodox Judaism ... again. Danny

Slr writes "I have some serious reservations about the section on Conservative Judaism -- but I defere to RK, who has been doing a lot of good work on this page, as well as Danny."

That's Ok, just list what you'd like to work on or discuss. All our articles are open to change. You mention that you have heard the Conservative viewpoint that Orthodoxy had created a charicature of authentic Judaism through its excessive concern with codification; thus Conservative Judaism represented a return to the spirit of the Amoraim, a time when Jewish legal processes embrased divergent views and pluralism. Well, yes that is exactly what Conservative rabbis teach. Certainly the lack of a halakhic process in mainstream Judaism over the last 300 years, the fossilization of halakha in ultra-stringent codes, and the rigorous attack against change represents a halakhic change. Conservative Judaism consciously rejects the mythology of halakhic history that the Orthodox have created, and due to its acceptance of the results of critical historical scholarship, it also rejects the mythology of any kind of unified halakhic process that all Jews agreed on. Judaism just never worked that way. Therefore CJ makes a conscious and publicly stated effort to use historical sources to try and determine what kind of changes really did occur, how they occured, and why they occured. With this additional information in hand (which too many Orthodox rabbis are ignortant of), rabbis today can better understand what might be the proper way to go about constructing a halakhic response to changing conditions. RK

Danny writes "As for a return to the "spirit of the Amoraim" that is about as legitimate a claim as the Reform claim that they are in the spirit of the prophets and the Orthodox claim that they are carrying out a tradition handed down at Sinai, i.e., silly ... Every denomination is a response to the exigencies of the day"

Of course every denomination is a response to the changed conditions that we have found ourselves in. Conservative Judaism doesn't merely admit this, it teaches this outright. (All forms of Orthodoxy, however, deny it.) I don't underdstand, however, how you can compare the Reform and Conservative position. The particular classic Reform position you mention, has many reform rabbis have finally admitted, is an outright falsehood. The biblical prophets never preached a total abrogation of the normative laws by which Jews lives. Reform Judaism did, and most of it still does. In contrast, Conservative Jews study historical texts as well as rabbinic sources to learn how the process of halakha worked in the period of the Mishnah, Talmuds; how it worked in the era of the Savoraim, Geonim and Rishonim. The CJ movement consciously rejects the post Shulkhan Arukh model of near total deferrance to seemingly infallible rabbis, and instead holds that a more fluid model is both necessary and theologically and historically justifiable. RK

Legitimizing myth

I hate to quibble with Danny, but I take issue over the use of the word "silly." Of course it is "silly" or "BS" as an objective claim; it is a legitimizing myth. I guess what I meant was, each movement's legitimizing mythologies need to be explicated clearly. RK, perhaps youcan incorporate much of what you wrote above into the article section on CJ -- just make clear, as Danny would insist and I agree, that it is a legitimizing mythology, i.e. CJ's interpretation of Jewish tradition that justifies CJ processes and notions of authority. Slrubenstein

Yes, Slr. Conservative Judaism as presented above is making use of a legitimizing myth. That is exactly my point. here. Danny

Orthodox Judaism does not treat Rabbis as infallible, rather it considers students to be sufficiently lacking in knowledge that a perceived failing of a Rabbi cannot be used to assume that it actually is a failing. The Talmud says that a student my only learn Torah from a Rabbi he perceives to be infallible. This does not mean that the Rabbi is actually infallible. Rather it means that the Rabbi must preserve his appearance of infallibility by never doing anything that cannot be justified in front of his students, even if he is unable to do so away from them. As such, the only failings an orthodox student will permit himself to find in any Jewish figure, are those specifically taught to him by a perceived perfect Rabbi. Ezra Wax

Word games par excellence. They are not infallible; we only perceive them as perfect? C'mon. Get off your high horse. Danny

This simply means that we are reluctant to ascribe a failing to them even when the evidence seems to point in that direction, when an alternative explanation can be presented even if it is a bit far-fetched. We believe that it is more reasonable to assume a far-fetched justification for the actions of a person who until now has acted perfectly than to assume that he made an error in judgement. Ezra Wax

Ezra, with respect: is it possible that what really motivates followers of a particular Rabbi is not their unwillingness to accept that he may be imperfect because he has been perfect up to now (if I understand you correctly); or is it that they are unwilling to consider that they have made a big mistake, and have long been blind to the Rabbi's imperfections? This is a matter of psychology, not theology, but worth thinking about.

In any event, the fundamental issue here is the question of authority -- obviously, the different contemporary movements have different understandings of authority. Slrubenstein

SLR: I think anybody can be viewed as perfect, and it would not be a mistake. Each action the person takes can be ascribed to something unique about that person or his situation which the judger does not know. This must be the case, because everybody does what he does for a reason, either he believes he is right, or he believes that he is wrong, but justified for doing what he does anyway. Which means that all people can be judged completely favourably. Witness the liberal media's defense of Islam and Islamic fundamentalists. The question simply arises at what point should one start to judge another unfavourably, or at least act as if one does. This, I believe is the crux of the difference between orthodox and non-orthodox Judaism.

Ezra, I may agree with you about the difference between orthodoxy and non-orthodoxy (I am not sure; the differnce may be qualitative and not quantitative, I have to think about it). But I was trying to make a different point: that in many cases people actually start to judge someone unfavorable at a point that is much later than what their own values (or theology) would suggest, because they are afraid to admit that they were wrong to put so much faith in the person or institution.

By the way, I am just not sure what you mean by the media's defense of Islamic fundamentalists. I'd say the media has been very harsh towards radical Islam. They have, however, reported favorably on non-radical Islam. But isn't this consistent with your position? When a Rabbi becomes imperfect, we do not reject all of Judaism (or Orthodoxy) just for that reason. We reject the Rabbi. Likewise, starting about 9 years ago we began to reject radical Islam, but not all of Islam. Slrubenstein

A person who until now has acted perfectly

Ezra, I know the rhetorical explanation of what you are saying all too well. The problem is that you are repeating the problem with it in the argument in its defense: "a person who until now has acted perfectly." Too bad I am not a believer, otherwise I would remind you that only God is perfect. Your position only leads to many conflicting statements and selective memory. But that aside, this is an encyclopedia. If you want to believe something, go right ahead. Hey, I don't even care that some Lubavitchers think the rebbe is still alive (he is probably hiding out with Jim Morrison]]). The problem is posting it as the only Jewish view. Just here alone, you have found a bunch of Jewish people that disagree. The only other option left for you is to say our views are illegitimate, biased, or anti. They're not. They are legitimate expressions of Judaism coming from three people with three different perspectives, all based on intimate knowledge. Yet even though we differ, we come to a modus vivendi for describing the phenomenon of Judaism. That is NPOV. Your efforts to delegitimize our positions (and the efforts show very little basis in real knowledge) by claiming that you have the only authentic position is bothersome. Hold back on your opinions, and try to find the common ground upon which to build with us. I am not going to convince you of my beliefs, and you are certainly not going to convince me of yours. Danny

Please do not make jokes about Jim Morrison! Slrubenstein

By the way(meaning, more seriously), I think there are three issues going on here. The first, which I think is motivating Danny's most recent comment, is that the article must make clear that this stuff about perfect Rabbis is itself a particular belief held by particular people. The second -- which is my interpretation of the force of Danny's most recent comment -- is that different beliefs have different conditions and effects, the study of which is the domain of historians and sociologists of religion, and the analysis of which belongs in the article too. The third -- which I think is Ezra's point, or my interpretation of his point, is that each movement's notion of authority must be made clear. I agree, because I think different notions of authority help us explain some of the conflicts among different Jewish movements. Slrubenstein

Danny: The notion of a person who until now has acted perfectly, is one even you can agree with, you need simply define what perfectly is, and what until now is. I make the assumption that before you have met somebody, you assume he is perfect until you have found some fault with him. As he is perfect, each action that he does must also be perfect. If his actions become harder and harder to fit with your conception of perfect, then you will eventually either conclude that he is not perfect, or that your conceptions of perfection are wrong.

An orthodox Jew, assumes that his parents, and teachers are perfect, because that is what he is taught to assume, and I maintain that it is natural to do so in any case. His conception of perfection, is that all the actions of his parents and teachers are within the bounds of Halacha and fit in with the dictates of society only to that level which is mandated by Halacha. His parents and teachers teach him to view all the Rabbis who are viewed as Tzaddikim as perfect except for the flaws which the Talmud and other sources ascribe to them. He views his parents and teachers as perfect taking into account regular human weaknesses.

Views of non-Orthodox Judaism

The following analysis is based on my conceptions of other denominations of Judaism, and I am sure you will blast me for them, but here goes: A Reform Jew is taught that the non-Jewish society is correct, and that a Jew must apologize for the failures of his parents and religion to realize that. A Conservative Jew is taught that society is correct, but that Jewish tradition can also be viewed as correct through the lense of Society. If he finds something in Judaism that cannot be viewed as fitting in with society, he will often decide that society is correct rather than Judaism. Orthodox Judaism on the other hand, will always assume that Judaism is correct, and that if society believes differently, then society is wrong. If at some later time he discovers that in the light of further Torah study, society is also correct, then he will adjust his opinion of society accordingly. Ezra Wax

Ezra Wax's claims about the teachings of Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism are way off base. They are polemical twistings of what authorities in these movements really teach. Perhaps he sincerely believes these inaccurate and insulting caricatures, and thus presents as truths. The problem is that his claim are flat-out provably false. Disagreeing with Reform Judaism (or Orthodox, etc.) is an opinion, and everyone is entitled to their own view. But one has no right to make disagree with non-existent beliefs! Would Ezra like it if people made up falsehoods about what Orthodox Jews teach, and then chastise the Orthodox for these non-extant positions? One would think not. RK 2003

Hahahahahahahahaha!!! Thanks, Ezra. (whoops, still, choking on my donut!) That was the best laugh I had all day. No, I do not assume that anyone is perfect--not my parents, not my teachers, not even me (well, yes, me, but I don't like to brag). It's amazing what kind of towers you can build with a false assumption though. I'l let RK take care of the rest. Danny 23:58 Nov 3, 2002 (UTC)

Would Ezra like it if people made up falsehoods about what Orthodox Jews teach, and then chastise the Orthodox for these non-extant positions? You mean like you have already done in your articles on Judaism, Orthodox Judaism, Ultra-Orthodox Judaism, and related articles?

In any case, I would like a more detailed rebuttal than, "You are wrong". Ezra Wax

It has already been done. The trouble is that you refuse to read any of the rebuttals. Entire articles on the beliefs of Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism have been written here, but your comments indicate that you have never read. Many books have been referenced in these entries; have you taken the time to read any of them? You can't just make stuff up, and then demand that the world take the time to prove you wrong. When you work on an NPOV encyclopaedia, facts come first. RK 2003

IZAK, just take the stuff to Meta. It is biased, POV, and historically wrong. For your general knowledge, Ashkenazic Jews are from the Rhine Valley, not Germany, while most Middle Eastern Jews are not Sephardic, no matter how common the term is. Try telling a Yemenite Jew he is Spanish. Iraqi and Persian Jews have been there since biblical times. Closer to Spain, the RIF (al-Fasi) was living in Morocco long before the expulsion in 1492. Danny

What the hell happened to the redirect? And now the content (which is non-NPOV) is not at all related to the title! And further, we all reached a consensus that the title of this entry itself was not NPOV. I am thus going to ignore the status of this material as a legitimate article, but it isn't. I will try to rewrite it to make it more NPOV, but it will be hard. Once rewritten, I will copy the more NPOV material, and send it to the article on relationships between segments of Judaism. RK

Ashkenazim

Danny, you are wrong to overly limit the definition of the word Ashkenazim. I am sure that no one is claiming that every Ashkenazic Jew in the world comes from all parts of Germany. Rather, the term Ashkenazi is a general term which refers Germany; Ashkenazi Jews is a term that in common parlance refers to all Jews who are descended from Germany and Eastern Europe, and to those Jews who share their liturgical tradition. That is the way that this term is usually used, even by rabbis and historians.

Yes and no. In common parlance, it's usage is extended. Look at the original though--it said, their origins were from Europe, but they were rooted in Germany. That is incorrect.

Similarly, you are being too harsh on Izhak when he identifies Middle-Eastern Jews as Sephardic. Many Middle-Eastern Jews themselves claim to be Sephardic, and I doubt that they are all lying.

It has nothing to do with lying. Many of them are and the claim is justified. Most are not. No Persian or Yemenite or Kurdish Jew claims to be Sephardic. The question they would ask is "which eidah are you?" Yes, Sephardic has been used to lump these groups together, usually by European Jews, but the members of these communities generally reject these terms. It is both inaccurate and demeaning. After all, Iraqi Jews were there 2,500 years.

Danny, you keep confusing scientific definitions with common useage.

I don't confuse anything. I want accurate statements reflecting Jewish history, not "this is kinda what it means and people who dont really know too much would say this, so I will too." History is a discipline, not a collection of conventional wisdoms.

So do I, but we won't get this by berating people as ignorant, when in fact they simply need clarifications. RK

Please feel free to add more information and clarify people's statement. Please feel free to show when common useage may be misleading, and more clarification is necessary. That's great, really. But please stop attacking people as totally wrong, when in fact all that they are guility of is using common references. You can be constructive without being destructive. RK

RK, please reread the above few lines and see how they might be interpretted as condescending. Danny

You missed my point, so I will be more blunt. Sometimes you are flat-out mean to people, and for no reason. You don't realize this. RK

Jewish history

Izak, you must learn how Wikipedia works if you want to contribute to this project. It turns out that their are already articles on Haredi Judaism and Ultra-Orthodox Judaism, and many other topics, but since you didn't do any reading yet, you failed to learn about their existence. You thus failed to learn how to link to those articles, and thus made many unnecessary links to articles that do not exist. Please slow down, spend a few days reading these articles, and then start to add material. Also, you need to spend more time learning about our NPOV policy. Your articles are not in accord with Wikipedia policy, and they inappropriately discuss issues from only an Orthodox perspective. That is not acceptable, and will be rewritten or removed in acord with Wikipedia policy. You can contribute to Wikipedia, and I welcome your information, but you must realize that this is a secualr, non-religious encycclopedia which gives no preference to any religion or religious denomination. RK

Izak, all of the issues you added to this topic were in violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy - or not related to the very topic of the article! In fact, you went on to write your own person history of the developement of every branch of Judaism from Mishnaic time up to the Enlightenment. I have to ask, have you actually read any of the articles here on Wikipedia? All of these topics already exist in their own articles, and have benefited from group consensus. You are literally reinventing the wheel, dozens of time over, and violating our NPOV policy all the way along. You can't write your own personal set of Jewish history articles to parallel the consensus articles that already exist. Please take the time to read through the many extant Wikipedia articles on these topics. Only then should you start to offer additional material, one article at a time. We would be pleased to work with you. RK

Hi! Thanks for your POV. I certainly will strive for what you have mentioned here. To be totally "secular" is in itself a form of "belief".To write objectively from "within" the traditions of the major religions is important for this project. Otherwise what you are in effect doing is creating a vehicle to unintentionally "bash" religion,and ignoring the FACT that literally BILLIONS of people of faith, such as Moslems, Christians, Muslims, Hindus,and Jews ,etc, do live within systems of faith and religion. Somehow, and I know how hard it must be for a purely secular person (who might actually be antagonistic to organized religion, such as being atheist), there has to be a SYNTHESIS, or balancing, so that articles don't come across as being written by people who have taken out the hatchet towards their religious fellow-humans. In my article on hate speech by the Ultra Orthdox, I tried to place their views within a certain context of how they think, and that the term "hate" for their speech is one-sided, as if only the Ultras have a "monopoly" on hate speech. There is plenty of hate and scorn expressed towards people who sincerely are Believers in God, which does not have to mean automatic non-NPOV. On the contrary, it shows a willingness to take in a greater picture,perhaps being able to SATISFY both the non-Believer, as well as those who have Faith in their religion. Thanks for your feed-back. I am trying to absorb it all. Congratulations on this excellent effort. User:IZAK

I did not start out always writing articles in an neutral point of view (NPOV) fashion, but over time I have adapted my writings here to the Wikipedia style. As time goes by much of what I wrote has stayed in the articles, but much is also challeneged and rewritten by others, sometimes even deleted entirely. This entire project works on community consensus. Note that I am not asking you to refrain from stating an Orthodox Jewish point of view. Rather, I am saying that although the article itself cannot speak from an Orthodox Jewish point of view, the article can give the Orthodox point of view. RK

Just to offer one example of how a controversial topic was handled easily and without much argument, in the entry on the Torah, it doesn't say that "Every word of the entire Torah was written by Moses." Rather, the article states something like "According to classical and Orthodox Judaism, every word of the entire Torah was written by Moses." This way the reader knows who holds this belief. The article also mentions how other groups view the origin of the Torah, etc. So viewpoints are allowed, and encouraged, to be included within articles. The articles themselves, though, work like an impartial reporter describing the issue. For more details, please read through the "Discuss this page" section on a number of articles, so you can see what kind of NPOV disagreements can come up, and how we try to solve them. (It isn't always easy, but it works!) RK

NPOV policy, claims of secular bias

Izak writes "To be totally secular is in itself a form of belief. To write objectively from within the traditions of the major religions is important for this project. Otherwise what you are in effect doing is creating a vehicle to unintentionally bash religion,and ignoring the FACT that literally BILLIONS of people of faith, such as Moslems, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and Jews, etc, do live within systems of faith and religion.

Wikipedia's neutral point of view (NPOV) policy does not bash religion. It protects us from it. Without NPOV, every time someone tried to edit an article they might try to rewrite the entire article from their own religion's perspective; this would lead to an infinite amount of arguments over whom is correct. In contrast, this encyclopaedia writes from a secular, historical, scientific point of view, which is the only neutral territory from which to allow people of multiple faiths, or no faith at all, to understand each other and to work together. On a last note being secular is not a form of belief at all. Beliefs are ideas that people hold to be absolutely true, despite the fact that they cannot prove such ideas. It is impossible to have a religious belief in merely saying that one will not accept claims and beliefs without peer-reviewed historical and scientific proof. Of course, one can certainly have a pig-headed and insulting way of being secular, and a bad way of treating people with religious beliefs! RK

Criticism of the article

Wow. This page is absolutely disgusting. So, the way to cure bad relationships between Jews is to pour slime in between the cracks? How is this an encyclopedia article, as opposed to a long diatribe? Phatjew 2003

Are you claiming that these quotes are misleading? I would love to learn about statements from leading Orthodox rabbis or Orthodox organizations that provide counter-balance to some of the more extreme statements. If such statements exist, this article would be improved by writing about them. Nonetheless, this article makes no attempt to cure bad relationships between Jews. It merely attempts to describe them. Unfortunately, much of what Ultra-Orthodox Judaism has to say about all other forms of Judaism is, as you put it, "disgusting". I can understand why a religious Jew would be emabarrassed to see some of these statements. However, many of the books and articles I have read on this topic were written by Orthodox Jews, so it isn't outside the pale for a religious Jew to attempt this kind study. RK 2003

This is not an article, it is venting by anti-Chareidi Jews. Each one of the sources is anti-Chareidi. None of them try to understand where the other side is coming from. Dumping all of this garbage into one page and then requiring the targets to sort through it and refute them is not in any way an attempt at writing a fair article. It is anti-semitism pure and simple. It is simply being anti-semitic against a segment of Judaism that strongly disagrees with your point of view, and delegitimizes it. Ezra Wax

Ezra Wax's claims are false, and are themselves a good example of hatespeech against non-Ultra-Orthodox Jews. In truth, the quotes he refers to come from Ultra-Orthodox, Modern Orthodox and Conservative Jewish sources. Wax's claims to the contrary are false. His accusations of "anti-semitism" are false and pathetic, but not unexpected. Sadly, many religious fundamentalists get filled with anger when they are confronted with points of view that differ from from their own. (The beatings, attacks, and death threats against Conservative Jews in Israel are one just example of this. The deligitimization of Modern Orthodoxy is another example.) RK 00:52 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Your problem with the "Ultra-Orthodox" is that they violently disagree with the non-orthodox viewpoint. If you are going to write an NPOV article about it, then you have to write it in a way that shows how a reasonable person could have the viewpoint of the "Ultra-Orthodox". If you can only say that they are unreasonable, then you are clearly not neutral. The "Ultra-Orthodox" think they are very reasonable. If you have a problem with them thinking that you are evil, then the solution is not to call them evil instead, it is to examine why they think you are evil and determine whether they have a point. Ezra Wax

Um, I have certainly not labeled this community as evil. Neither does the article. This kind of rhetoric against other people of the same faith is a common phenomenon; there are political and psychological explanations for why religious fundamentalists (of any faith) feel compelled to take these positions. Unfortunately, you are asking us to take sides, asking us to write an encyclopedia article to see if the ultra-Orthodox attacks have "a point", and thus perhaps we should agree with them. But encyclopedia articles do not take sides; they report the point of view of each group as impartially as possible, and explain why the group has this view. We don't take sides. Nonetheless, I will agree with you we should explain the Ultra-Orthodox point of view from their own point of view. In fact, I think our article on this subject already does an excellent job of that. Maybe we can incorporate some of that article into here, and remove a few quotes from here? This can improve the article, and maintain a neutral, scholarly tone. RK 14:51 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Quoting "Ultra-Orthodox" rabbis saying things that sound highly unacceptable to the average westerner without explaining why it is not what it seems it misleading and it is misleading for the purpose of making the "Ultra-Orthodox" look bad.

Ok, here I now agree with you! This is a good point, and I think this article should be rewritten to take this great concern into account. RK 23:12 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I do not think that the article on "Ultra-Orthodox Judaism" tells the story from an "Ultra-Orthodox" point of view. It was originally written from an anti-"Ultra-Orthodox" point of view and however much editing is done to it, it will not be fixed. The article has to be rewritten. I take issue with the way a whole bunch of text was shoveled into the current article without any attempt to make a real article. I would have a problem if it were any topic, but when it is what I consider a personal attack, it is much worse. The entire article should be moved to the talk section and only a small subsection moved back into the main article, if we were to keep the article looking at all the way it looks now. I don't think it should look the way it looks now. It currently is simply an attempt to point out strife without accomplishing anything useful.

I don't think it is anywhere near as bad as that, but based upon your above concern, this raises valid issues. RK 23:12 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)