Jump to content

Talk:Relationships between Jewish religious movements

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ezra Wax (talk | contribs) at 23:10, 31 October 2002 (added article with more content). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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. But what we have here so far isn't good, and this entry should probably be deleted.

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

Thankyou 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


This article contains real information that defends the Orthodox point of view. Of course it will be vigorously disagreed with and is not sufficiently NPOV:

Many Orthodox Jews believe very strongly that non-Orthodox efforts at claiming to be valid Judaism is destructive.

Non-Orthodox Jews are highly incensed that they are called heretics by some Orthodox leaders. They believe that their version of Judaism is just as valid as any Orthodox version.

Many Orthodox leaders declaim the lack of adherence to Torah law by followers of non-Orthodox Judaism and proclaim that it is a result of the changes in procedure and philosophy made by non-Orthodox Jewish leaders.

Non-Orthodox leaders vigorously proclaim that they have as much right to determine the development of Judaism as any Orthodox Rabbi.

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.

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.

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.

Some non-Orthodox leaders proclaim themselves Orthodox and claim to have as much right to determining Judaism as any Orthodox Rabbi.

The new confusion that is sure to result is considered inflammatory by Orthodox leaders and they call him a hater of God.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Relationships_between_Jewish_religious_movements&oldid=396871"