Talk:Judaism
I would like to note that orthodox Judaism is not a movement and is simply defined as the most conservative form of Judaism. As such it means the same thing as traditional, while traditional has the connotation that it no longer applies, and of course this is not so in the opinion of the orthodox. Ezra Wax
No, Orthodox Judaism does not mean traditional. It is simply one resonse to a number of historical phenomena, beginning with the Enlightenment. In fact, I know plenty of people who argue that Orthodox Judaism has strayed so far from traditional Judaism that it can no longer be considered Judaism. Furthermore, where on earth did you get the idea that "traditional has the connotation that it no longer applies"? Finally, we generally don't remove Talk pages. If you want, you can archive it, but please put it back. Danny
I have no problem archiving the talk page, but I am not sure how it is usually done. Ezra Wax
What is your argument that orthodox Judaism has strayed from traditional Judaism? Ezra Wax
Of course it has. Danny
That is not much of an argument. I do admit it has changed, but although many changes were and are controversial, it has generally been accepted in orthodox circles that the changes have followed the dictates of halacha. Ezra Wax
- You are assuming that it is my argument. I never said that
- You admit change, but argue that your changes are acceptable.
- You justify this by making an unstated unilateral assertion that Orthodoxy are the sole purveyors of change.
- This is an encyclopedia. It is not intended to argue your point of view (or mine, for that matter), but a neutral point of view. That view may not be acceptable to either of us, but it is more acceptable than presenting only one point of view.
- Danny
I maintain that orthodoxy has the narrowest definitions of what sorts of changes are permissible, as far as halacha is concerned. I define Judaism as the beliefs that Jews have regarding what is required of them by God, as such, orthodox Judaism is the most conservative, and anything regarded as acceptable by orthodox Judaism would be acceptable to all Jews. Ezra Wax
Common Orthodox argument, but essentially flawed. Just because the definitions are narrowest doesn't make them correct. Perhaps change is necessary (there is precedent for that: Yohanan Ben Zakkai for one). Nor are all things acceptable to Orthodox Jews acceptable to all Jews. I know plenty of people who will not pray at services with a mechitza (a division between men and women). Kollel is especially problematic, since a very strong case can be made that it is actually a violation of "traditional" halachah (see Pirkei Avot, Maimonides, the Chatam Sofer on Sukkot, etc.). There are many other examples too. Danny
- Not to go off on too much of a tangent, but a good deal of contemporary historical scholarship and social science (not on "Jews" but on everything) argues that the very idea of "tradition" or "traditional" is a modern construction. It is very common in modernity for a cultural movement to legitimize itself by claiming to be "traditional." In any event, Wax is clearly wrong: there are many differences between Ultra-Orthodox Jews today and Judaism as it was practiced in the 14th century, let alone in the 4th century, CE. Also, Wax is wrong that if somethin is acceptable to Orthodox Jews it is acceptable to all Jews. This isn't theory or ideology, these are two empirical claims that are simply wrong. Slrubenstein
I will modify my claims. The orthodox procedures for modifying accepted practice, are the most conservative, as such orthodox halacha can be best justified by traditional sources. Although movements such as Chassidus were considered radical in their time, and thus were not orthodox when introduced, they subsequently have become orthodox by the universal acceptance of all, but the most radical Chassidim. Ezra Wax
- Okay, Ezra, this sounds reasonable -- but obviously non-Orthodox might see it differently. The task for us is not only to represent different view (Orthodox, non-Orthodox), but to present them in ways that clarify disagreements; I think what you just wrote is a successful example, Slrubenstein
RK: What did I write that was false? What was polemical about what I wrote? I object to the intermingling of orthodox and non-orthodox views in this article. I believe that the views should be cleanly separated. I also object to the description of Jewish beliefs relative to those of Christianity. Any comparison of the two sets of beliefs should be done as an aside rather as the main point of a paragraph. I also object to a description that relies on philosophical terms to describe Jewish beliefs. Ezra Wax
Ezra Wax recently made a curious addition. In an out of quote context from the Talmud, Ezra Wax tried to define a Jew as literally any human being who is not an idolator. This is most certainly 'not the traditional Jewish position, nor for that matter, is this belief accepted by Orthodox Jews. Both Orthodox Jews and non-Orthodox Talmud historians agree that this phrase was written as as non-legal rhetoric; it was an exegerration. It was never undertood literally; further, no Jewish denomination accepts this as an actual way of defining a Jew today. The rabbis of the Talmud had many good things to say about gentiles that were not idolators, and the highest compliment they had was that someone was virtually a Jew themselves. But taken out of context, as it was in the article, is extremely misleading.
Someone recently aded a load of material. Someone else removed it for the sole reason that it was added "too fast." I personally did not like the material, but just because there was too much is no reason to remove it. Danny
Danny, it is agreed by historians and sociologists that the American (and European) Jewish community has been 'assimilating a breakneck speed. That is the word that every one of these scholars uses. Your suggested change is not good, because it is a totally different word that gives a misleading impression. Except for the Modern Orthodo, some of the Ultra-Orthodox, and the core committed part of Conservative and Reform Judaism, most Jews have not become "acculturated". Anyone in the field can provide you with many reputable sources about how it is only the Orthodox community that has been able to acculturate to America without large amounts of assimilation. In contrast, almost all of the the secular Jewish community, most of those raised Reform, and even many who were raised Conmservative have not merely become acculturated to America, but in fact have gobv further and have assimilated. Millions of Jews have stopped speaking Yiddish, they have stopped learning and studying in Hebrew, they have stoped most of their dietary practices; they have given up daily tefila (Jewish prayer); they have begun intermarrying at breakneck speeds, and many Jews have effectively stopped having children. (The replacement rate for the Jewish community is, in theory, 2.0, and in practice, needs to be about 2.1. As many studies have shown, in reality it has dropped to 1.8) RK
Even non-religious scholars of the Jewish communty have written literally hundreds or articles in jourmnals and newspapers about the rampant assimilation in the modern Jewish world. I cannot imagine how you can override every one of them, simply because you personally feel that this accurate word is "loaded", and then replace it with a word that is misleading at best. RK
As for the new material on the Orthodox Jewish Ba'al Teshuvah movement, it was obviously very emotional and not NPOV, but maybe it can be rewritten and turned into an article of its own. RK
assimilation is a good word to use Vera Cruz