Talk:Judaism

Note - we still need people to work on the Kohen article, the article on the concept of the priesthood in Biblical and rabbinic Judaism.

The quoting of a Conservative Rabbi can and should be separated out of a general overview of Judaism. If he is saying something unique to Conservative Judaism, then he should be quoted in a section dealing with Conservative Judaism. If he is saying something that everybody would agree with, then some other neutral source should be found.

To some extent, I agree. But I wonder what you consider "Conservative", and what you consider "everybody". I known that some of Orthodox Judaism is now considered "Conservative", or even "Reform" by those on the right-wing. RK

Those views of Orthodox Judaism that are not universal should also be treated as such. I would treat everything up to the beginning of the enlightenment separately. I would describe it all in neutral terms without quoting any sources later than that period. Anything that cannot be described using that method would be treated separately.

Judaism past that time should not be divided up into categories such as Reform and Conservative, rather it should be divided up by ideas and those ideas should be noted as being held by Conservative, Reform etc. The originator of each idea should be noted, and the controversy surrounding the idea should be elaborated on. EW

Also, being that "Ultra-Orthodox" Jews do not approve of their religion being presented in NPOV it has to be made clear when presenting the religion that its presentation itself is controversial and this controversy must be removed as much as possible and isolated. And of course, there is the problem with the categorization. The term "Ultra-Orthodox" is considered a derogatory term akin to nigger. You cannot possibly claim NPOV when you call your subject nigger. --Ezra Wax

Where is this polemic coming from? Your claim is false. Ultra-Orthodox Jews themselves will occasionally use this term to differentiate themselves from Modern Orthodox Jews. Further, the majority of NPOV (neutral point of view) published and peer-review scholarship on this subject uses this very term. Even Orthodox Jewish scholars use this same excat term. You are obviously coming to this from a very biased point of view, so biased that you end up slandering many Orthodox Jews themselves! Please take the time to go to a library and read a few dozen articles and books on this subject, as I have done, or spend a many years doing so, as Danny has done. You will learn that words like "Ultra-Orthodox" or "Classical German Reform" are useful adjectives, and not hatespeech. RK

I see your point of view. I always viewed it differently. I have heard people who were offended by the term. Whenever I have seen the term used in literature I have always assumed it was by somebody who was not sensitive to the issue. The fact that people use a derogatory term to describe themselves is no proof that it is not derogatory. Witness the use of nigger by Huckleberry Finn. Or that even though many Indians find the term "Indian" derogatory, they will use it to describe themselves because that is what a non-indian will call an Indian. The fact that Ultra-Orthodox use the term to describe themselves is only because there is no better term. EW

Ultra-Orthodox Jews also use the term Haredi. RK

I never heard the term Haredi used before I went to Israel. That term is primarily used in Israel. It is rarely used by them in North America. Perhaps in literature that you have seen it is used, but not in daily conversation or in most literature that I have seen. Ezra Wax

How can you try and present the Ultra-Orthodox (Haredi) point of view when you are so unread on the topic? The term Haredi is very commonly used among North American Jews. I am having a hard time respecting your point of view, as you simply don't seem to have any knowledge of the subject.

Ezra Wax writes "Those views of Orthodox Judaism that are not universal should also be treated as such. I would treat everything up to the beginning of the enlightenment separately. I would describe it all in neutral terms without quoting any sources later than that period. Anything that cannot be described using that method would be treated separately."

We cannot do this. In fact, it is literally impossible to write a dispassionate and neutral point of view (NPOV) article without using the results and findings of modern day historical research and scholarship. If we prevent ourseleves using historical research to describe pre-Enlightenment events, then we might as well give up on the project altogether. We would have nothing left but religious polemics. If we adopted your proposal, the only material we could use on pre-Enlightenment Judaism would be biased Jewish, Christian and Islamic polemics on Judaism (some pro-, many con-.) You still misunderstand what NPOV means. It does not mean that everyone agrees. It means that we write on religious topics without proselytizing, without religious polemics, and without accepting as factual every religious claim. NPOV means that we treat all religions in the same way, and we analyze them historically and dispassionately. RK

It is possible to present the entire story in a NPOV way that both Haredi and non-Haredi Jews will be happy with. There might have to be a few compromises, but they can be minimized. The best treatment I have seen is the one presented by the soc.culture.jewish faq. It is not perfect, but something along those lines is what I have in mind.

This would be a very bad idea. The SCJ FAQ does not attempt to maintain NPOV. It is a religious and pro-Jewish document. Now, there is absolutely nothing wrong with Jewish people being pro-Judaism; I happen to be a religious Jew myself. But if I am going to contribute to a non-religious encyclopaedia that depends on disapassionate historical scholarship, then intellectual integrity forces me to accept the findings of such scholarship, even when it contradicts what I may previously have believed to be correct. For instance, the SCJ FAQ holds as a valid point of view that the current text of the Torah was written by Moses. Such a claim would be out of line in any non-Orthodox Jewish encyclopaedia. Scholarship has proven that the current text of the Torah was redacted together from several earlier documents. The fundamentalist claim has been proven to be untenable. Wikipedia can - and alreayd does - explain why fundamentalist Jews and Christians reject such findings, but it does not and shall not present the fundamentlist view as having equally valid scientific claims to truth.

For instance, the SCJ FAQ holds as a valid point of view that the current text of the Torah was written by Moses. Such a claim would be out of line in any non-Orthodox Jewish encyclopaedia.

That is debatable. Here is the Columbia Encyclopedia's definition of Torah. You can check it on the web for yourself. It presents only the Orthodox Jewish point of view, and is a non-Orthodox Jewish Encyclopedia. Clearly it does not feel that stressing the views of the non-Orthodox is required in order to be NPOV. I would like to say that the method being used here is over emphasizing the importance of the scholarship being used.

(tôr´) (KEY) [Heb.,=teachings or learning], Hebrew name for the five books of Moses—the Law of Moses or the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Bible. The Torah is believed by Orthodox Jews to have been handed down to Moses on Mt. Sinai and transmitted by him to the Jews. It laid down the fundamental laws of moral and physical conduct. The Torah begins with a description of the origin of the universe and ends on the word Israel, after the story of the death of Moses, just before the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites. In a wider sense the Torah includes all teachings of Judaism, the entire Hebrew Bible and the Talmud.

If this is all that it says, then this would be laughed out of any University, as well as any decent seminary. Did you check out what this same encycloapedia says on Biblical scholarship, the Documentary hypothesis, archaeology and the Bible, and Near-Eastern textual scholarship? If not, why did you leave these critical parts out? And if the encyclopaedia does not contain entries on these, then your point is useless: In the latter case it would only prove that this particular encyclopaedia simply never discussed the topics to begin with. RK

Here is the entry on Moses. It is much more objective than what you find on Wikipedia. It mentions that his historical existence has been questioned but still points out that there is no real reason to question it. It makes clear that while it is possible to question the authorship of the Torah, it is a very minor opinion. Haredi Judaism would deride those opinions and perhaps find a way more acceptable to themselves to describe them, but we have to have at least this level of objectivity. BTW, in my opinion quoting the entire entry of both of these articles is fair use, as it is only intended for discussion purposes and not for general use. :

(m´zs) (KEY) , Hebrew lawgiver, probably b. Egypt. The prototype of the prophets, he led his people in the 13th cent. B.C. out of bondage in Egypt to the edge of Canaan. The narrative in the Bible is the chief source of information on his life. His historical existence has been questioned, although there is nothing improbable about the general outline of the narrative after allowances for distortion over time are made. According to the biblical account, Moses was divinely protected as an infant, and as a young man he received a special calling at the burning bush. He lived in constant touch with God, who guided him in leading all Israel out of Egypt and across the desert. Through him God promulgated the Law, including the Ten Commandments, the criminal code, and the whole liturgical law. In his old age, when the Hebrews were at the Jordan River ready to cross, God gave Moses a view of the Promised Land from Mt. Pisgah; but he did not enter it, for he died and was buried in Moab. All this is recounted in the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The authorship of these and Genesis (collectively called the Pentateuch) has been ascribed to Moses since earliest times; hence they are called the Books of Moses. The Law he promulgated is called the Mosaic law, the Torah. Few critics would argue that Moses actually authored the Pentateuch. Moses, one of the great names of Hebrew history, is referred to repeatedly in the Jewish, Christian, amd Muslim scriptures. In the Qur’an, Moses is a precursor of Muhammad, confirming God’s revelation to Abraham. Among the Pseudepigrapha is a Testament of Moses. 1

See E. Auerbach, Moses (1975); G. W. Coats, Moses (1988).

I'm sorry, but you seem to have totally misread the text. It states the precise opposite of what you claim. It admits that few biblical critics would admit that Torah authored the Penateuch (Torah.) Actually, that is a severe understatement. With the exception of a handful of Christian and Jewish fundamentalists, there is not a single scholar of the Bible that now believes that Moses wrote it. That is the overwhelming mainstream view. Even many in Orthodox Judaism now accept this (and I can cite many sources if you like.) RK

Scholarship has proven that the current text of the Torah was redacted together from several earlier documents. The fundamentalist claim has been proven to be untenable.

This is clearly false in the opinion of the Columbia Encyclopedia. It does not deny the possibility, but it discounts it. Haredi Judaism would be much more emphatic about discounting the possibility, but at the very least this level of objectivity should be reached.

Absolutely wrong. The Encyclopaedia says the exact opposite of what you wrote. You need to re-read it. In any case, the Columbia encyclopaedia is not a good source for this topic. Why are you ignoring the last 150 years of biblical scholarship? Wikipedia is not the place for you or anyone else to carry on a crusade against modernity. It seems to me that this is not a place for you as long as you are unread in modern biblical scholarship. RK

Wikipedia ... does not and shall not present the fundamentlist view as having equally valid scientific claims to truth.

The scientific method itself does not require truth. It allows one to start with a hypothesis and treat it as the truth until it is disproved. In other words, anything claimed by science is only a claim that it has not been disproved. The Haredi view is that there are facts that we (Haredim at least) know, we (Haredim) have been taught them by our (the parents of Haredim) parents and while there are some errors in the transmission, for the most part they can be ignored as extreme care was made during transmission, and documentation for that extreme care can be provided.

Irrelevant. You are trying to justify presenting fundamentalist religious beliefs as facts. Why not accept the fundamentalist Christian or Hindu beliefs as facts, and disprove the Torah altogether? RK

It turns out that science is based on conjecture, and Haredi scholarship is based on truth (at the very least the claim of truth, something science cannot pretend to claim.) While the scientific method has produced many results, they do not describe the truth, they are just a summary of known facts.

Using a method of historical research that is not acceptable to both sides is not NPOV. It is possible to discuss the issue using both methods of historical research, and give them equal weight. I fail to see your great fascination with modernity. It assumes that people nowadays are in some demonstrable way better than earlier generations. That is an unproven assertion, and it is false. It simply that the style has changed, and that certain methods that were previously used have been more developed, but the pros and cons of the earlier methods can be discussed. In any case you take as a given that the decisions made during the enlightenment were correct. That is the point of Haredi Judaism they are protesting that assumption. If you want a NPOV you must be prepared to accept that criticism and look at your opinion in that light, however difficult it is and however uncomfortable it makes you. Ezra Wax

Ezra writes "Using a method of historical research that is not acceptable to both sides is not NPOV. It is possible to discuss the issue using both methods of historical research, and give them equal weight."

No, this is not possible to do while still maintaining NPOV. There are no both sides of the story to the validity of historical scholarship. Ultra-Orthodox Jews reject the validity of all historical research as heretical. There is no form of research, archaoelogy or science that they accept as valid. The only times they accept statements as valid is when they happen to agree 100% with their own pre-decided views. Wikipedia in no way, shape or form will ever allow religious fundamentlist readings of the Bible (or Talmud, or New Testament, or Koran) to be presented as having the same scientific status as impartial and NPOV historical research. You still fail to grasp the point. F

No, this is not possible to do while still maintaining NPOV.

The level of the Columbia Encyclopedia can at least be attained, and perhaps bettered.

There are no both sides of the story to the validity of historical scholarship.

Each method used by historical scholarship has to be evaluated independently. Historical revisionism has been misused in other areas, and Haredim will maintain it has been misused in this area as well. This does not have to be an opinion. If you wish to revise history (and I mean this in a neutral sense) then you must present your case. Otherwise history as it stood before the revision (i.e. before the enlightenment) still stands.

Ultra-Orthodox Jews reject the validity of all historical research as heretical.

That is not the case. When the historian is a heretic, then his subjective judgements are suspected to contain heresy. Therefore, scientists who are followers of movements that are considered heretical by Haredis, must have their results closely scrutinized before being accepted. Any scholarship that relies on theory, is to a certain degree subjective.

In addition, people tend to overlook minor bits of information that do not fit in with their theories. A lover of the truth wants the truth, but if the truth must be colored, then they will only accept it colored with their color.

i>There is no form of research, archaoelogy or science that they accept as valid.

I would change that to: There is no form of research which contains a certain measure of subjectivity including archaeology and many sciences that they will accept as valid when undertaken by somebody who they consider a heretic.

Haredim do also have to broken down into separate groups. An opinion held by some is not held by others. And some of the opinions are mutually incompatible such as holding both of them is untenable, but holding one or the other works just fine, and even being of the opinion that both are valid and which set to hold is a personal choice.

To this end. There are Haredim such as some followers of Rabbi Samson Rephael Hirsch who do attend universities and participate in all forms of scientific endeavors and while they may be criticized at times, no Haredi will consider them heretical or their research suspect.

There are Haredim who while they won't attend a regular university, will attend a university such as Touro College whose environment has been tailored to their needs, such as having non coed classes and not having to attend classes which contain controversial topics.

As a general rule Haredim believe that the only worthwhile pursuit is service of God. Therefore whatever they do must be explained in that light. When they eat, it must be for the purpose to have strength to serve him. The same goes for sleeping. They work in order to have money to take care of their needs. If they pursue a career it is in order to have an enjoyable method of earning a living. Any entertainment must be for the purpose of relaxing the mind so that more service can be rendered to God. etc. In addition, each of these activities should in themselves be done in a way that serves God directly, if possible.

The greatest service of God is generally considered to be Torah study (although there might be some who disagree). As a result there are those whose opinion that no career be pursued other than the study of Torah, and everything else will take care of itself. There are people who have pursued this method and succeeded. Therefore, these people are of the opinion that everybody should take this road and only if they fail are see failure as likely should they take the road the rest of the world takes. Many students Rabbi Aharon Kotler's yeshiva in Lakewood are of this opinion. These students would never end up in a university as they would avoid it with all their might because they have to study Torah, and if they do decide to enter the workforce, they generally enter it in a way that does not require a university education.

Then there are those who consider the left leaning atmosphere of a university dangerous, and that it must be avoided at all costs, but still believe think that spending all day learning is unrealistic for most people. They would go into business for themselves, join a family business, or do work that does not require university schooling. You will find many of the Chassidim in New York are of this opinion. Even they will recognize secular scholarship that is undertaken by those who are unbiased. They will recognize that although they believe that it is not advisable to place oneself in a university atmosphere because it is tainted, somebody who does so while following one of the other Haredi traditions can come through for the most part unscathed. They would critically read something written by a Haredi had gone to university and pass judgement on it according to its merits.

As a general rule Haredim look for a letter of approbation written by a well know rabbi regarding any work of scholarship. This allows them to read the work uncritically. The letter of approbation usually testifies that the writer is a God fearing jew, and a scholar. It praises the purpose of the work, and gives the author of the work a blessing that his work should be successful. Any work that cannot meet these criteria will not receive an approbation from a well known Haredi Rabbi. However, it is told that Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, one of the foremost rabbis of the previous generation,would give a letter of approbation to anybody who asked, because somebody once committed suicide when he refused to.

The letter of approbation generally does not guarantee the quality of scholarship. Most rabbis who write such letters do not have the time to critically examine the entire work. Instead they allow their knowledge of the author and his reputation to speak for itself. As such, the primary purpose of the letters is to warn against non-Haredim masquerading as Haredim, and those of dubious reputation, from getting their works accepted as those which can be read uncritically from a faith point of view. The quality of the scholarship is placed secondary to the faith of the scholar. However, this does not mean that poor scholarship goes unchecked. It just means that the scholarship has to stand on its own merits.

Even so, many Haredim even though they belong to any one of the above groups, will still view works without letters of approbation, and simply view them a lot more critically. When society in general comes to a conclusion different than that espoused in the Torah, Charedim consider the entire line of reasoning suspect. They follow the dictum of Rabbi Chanina ben Dosa (Avos 3:11) who says that he whose fear of sin takes precedence over his desire for wisdom, will have lasting wisdom, but he whose desire for wisdom takes precedence over his fear of sin will not have lasting wisdom. As such, they detest any scholarship which they feel does not do the same. Ezra Wax

---

Ezra writes "Each method used by historical scholarship has to be evaluated independently. Historical revisionism has been misused in other areas, and Haredim will maintain it has been misused in this area as well. This does not have to be an opinion. If you wish to revise history (and I mean this in a neutral sense) then you must present your case. Otherwise history as it stood before the revision (i.e. before the enlightenment) still stands."

This is dangerous fundamentalist drivel. Ezra, please go away. We will not allow your fundamentalist and anti-historical polemics to rewrite the last 150 years of scholarship on this subject.

I can't defend a group I know nothing about, but RK, are you saying that a religiously committed view is equivalent to bias and therefore is categorically excluded? Forgive my presumption but, if that's the case, wouldn't that explain why 150 years of scholarship would need to be re-written? -- Mkmcconn

Mkmcconn, I think you state RK's point way too broadly. The issue is not whether "a religiously committed view" is categorically excluded; it all hinges on the nature of the committment. The scientific method is based on constant questioning of truth-claims based on new experiences and evidence. In other words, one must be willing to change one's mind -- I think the only limit to this principle, the only hting a scientist could not change his or her mind about (without leaving the realm of science) is that there is a world that we can know (however incompletely) through experience. Everything else is up for grabs. I think that what RK is reacting to is the claim (or perceived claim) that there are somethings that cannot be questioned, no matter what the evidence is.

A second issue implicit in the argument between Ezra and RK is what is the basis for truth-claims: authority, or evidence available to all? If I understand RK correctly, I agree that a Wikipedia article cannot assert claims about the world based solely on authority; such claims must be based on all sorts of evidence (in the articles in question, a variety of texts and archeological remains).

My aopologies to RK or Ezra if I have misrepresented their views -- if so, though, please explain how/why, Slrubenstein

A peculiar situation sometimes arises in scholarship on religious subjects, when a religious group is treated as a specimen to study, but is not allowed to directly inform how it is described. When this happens, scholarship is really studying itself. All of the religion articles will have this problem to some extent - it goes with the territory. When experience is sometimes (really or imagined) in a radically different context than is supposed by those who study the experiences of others, there's going to be a conflict of visions; and unless Wikipedia is going to declare itself authoritative concerning which context is the real one, it will have to (somehow fairly) allow itself to be subjected to some very odd-sounding interpretations of the facts. Now, I do believe that there is one context that all people (in fact) have in common. But apparently, Ezra Wax would disagree with me about what that context is, and as much as I might want to I should restrain myself for the sake of the argument, from censoring him by ruling out of bounds his idea of authority. Am I rambling? Am I wrong? -- Mkmcconn