This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Religion: Interfaith Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. Judaism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Discrimination High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Jewish history High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

If you want to rewrite the article to reflect opposing opinions, please do the research and back up those opposing opinions. My contributions reflect strictly what Jewish Law says on the subject as expressed by the biggest rabbinic authorities (over 200 to boot), from the Talmud itself down to the 20th century, many of whom I cite and quote in my two extensive articles which are listed below this Wikipedia entry.

Whatever "reality" you may want to ascribe today unfortunately is due to ignorance on the subject by today's halakhic opinion makers, who primarily ignore the historic Sephardic responsa on the matter. I know this because I myself have confronted rabbis who advocate the so called "giur leHumrá" (a halakhic fiction itself with no basis on Jewish Law), and who cannot defend their position after I have exposed the facts. Your edit has been deleted Me, Myself, and I are Here. Dramirezg (talk) 01:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

David this is very POV and does not affect the reality we live in. Please add opposing opinions since the vast majority of Jewry, even those sensitive to the plight of Anusim require Gerut Lehumra.

Sorry I had to erase most of it, as it is stated by the Rambam (Rabbi Moses Maimondes) himself that the child of a Jewish rebel is called an 'anús'. He does not use, nor the rabbis after him, the term 'Bene Anusim'. When rabbis need to differentiate between the children born from a Jewish father, versus a Jewish mother -- rebel, coerced or not --, the term would be Zerá Israel, which literally is a person who is not Jewish according to halakháh.

The term 'anús' or 'bene anús' can only be applied if the mother is an anusá, i.e. Jewish. Hence the child is Jewish too.--Dramirezg (talk) 06:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The two refer to two diffrent people starting out. Anusim are more Middle Eastern, whereas Morrano refers more to Spain descendants.

The word Anusim is just a rabbinic legal term, like Kasher, Pasul, etc. It has nothing to do if the Anusim in question is of Ashkenazi, Sefaradi, Mizrahi or Maghrebi background. "Marrano" was a word invented by Old-Christian Spaniards who were anti-Semites. It means "pigs" which clearly shows the derogatory attitude of Spaniards in 1492 during the Spanish Inquisition towards Jews.

The use of such words as "unfortunately" smacks of POV in my opinion. Moreover, the whole article is very poorly written. I have neither the time, nor the expertise, to rewrite the article better. Someone knowledgeable should undertake this. David Cannon 23:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree: I came to the same thought. Specifically about Freud and Einstein being called apostate and heritic, respectively. This is certainly a violation of NPOV. Heretic? They asked Einstein to be president of Israel, for crying out loud! Do you really think the relgious of Israel would even stand for suggesting his name?Valley2city 17:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Look Closely: Please see the discussion of Meshumad below. The basic reason why the legal classification of Herr Einstein is that of a "Meshumad" is that he was not an observant Jew, much like 90% of Jewry today. --Dramirezg 16:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please add the opposing viewpoint(s) to the main page: Hello, Wikipedia NPOV policy is now to give equal representation to the varying opinions on a given topic; it is clear there are varying opinions, so I respectfully request that the opposing viewpoints, including:

• that Anusim are required to go through conversion
• alternate definitions of Anus

be placed into the main page, with an equivalent set of arguments and rabbinical references. I think there is easily enough information in the talk page to do justice to the opposing viewpoint. Also references to Sephardic and Ashkenazim discrimination against each other should be noted, as this has influenced the debate.

--Squeedle 18:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the contributor to the page. We realize it needs editing. Corrections and additional sources are coming up. Thank you for your concerns.

Dramirezg wants to inform for those who make changes, please discuss the reasons of your changes in this page. The issue of anusim is complex for someone not trained in Jewish Law, and editions must be performed by someone trained in this tradition.

While the article makes it clear that anusim are considered Jews by (most) other Jews because their conversion was forced, it does not make clear what their present status is. Are the modern-day descendants of Spanish Anusim practising Jews, or Catholics?

I saw in another article a claim that the anusim of Catalonia still use Hebrew loanwards in casual speech. I would think it pretty hard to believe that they are Catholics if this is the case. --Saforrest 17:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dramirezg: Thank you Saforrest for making the questions. I think I have to reword some parts of the article, because the point of your first paragraph is not precisely what I wanted to give across. It is somewhat difficult to convey this meaning, because Jewish Law does not operate within the constrains of what people consider "racial" or "religious" categories. And I will bring you certain points that perhaps will make it easier, but I personally do not know how to put it in the article without becoming long winded. Maybe you can help me out.

In Jewish Law, there are two points one must consider for confirmation of Jewish status. One is the "citizenship" one, and second is the behavioral one.

The "citizenship" point of Jewish Law states that the child of a Israelite woman is still an Israelite, no matter what "religion," or belief system the child may be raised with, he still remains an Israelite, or in modern common parlance, a "Jew." So for example, if the child born of a Jewish mother is raised Catholic, the child though Catholic [in religion] is still Jewish, because "citizenship" wise he still belongs to the Nation of Israel for having being born of a Israelite woman. Similar if a child of American parents who is raised as a Mexican in Mexico, the child still has the rights to American citizenship, though he behaves like a Mexican, because the U.S. constitution protects that right.

Now, why did I prefer to use the word "citizenship" over the "biological" or "racial"? Because for example, a Chinese woman decides to "become Jewish", this means she accepts and is willing to follow the Laws of Judaism. In common parlance, this would be called "conversion", but the terminology in Jewish Law is ger ssedeq, which means "righteous alien". Such person is recognized as a full member of the Nation of Israel. "Giur" [pron. gee-oor, gutural "G" as gable] is the process homologous to becoming a "Naturalized Citizen" in American Law. Even if the ger ssedeq decides to adopt another religion, that person still remains an Israelite, and their children are too Israelites ad infinitum, though they may have ethnic Chinese ancestry.

The behavioral one is a bit more complicated, but the point I made in the article is clear. Suffice to say, the axial element is if the person follows Jewish Law or not. An Israelite who follows Jewish Law to the best of his abilities is termed "kasher". If he does, then he can be considered Jewish for all tense and purposes prescribed in Jewish Law. If the person is a min or a meshumad, then there are restrictions as to what one can do with such person, although for marriage they are permissible. This element would make more sense comparing it to American criminal law. Any person who commits a felony in the U.S. automatically has revoked certain rights and priviliges. But it does not take away the fact that he remains a U.S. citizen. It sort of works the same in Jewish Law. For example, a case of a Jewish "felony" [in Hebrew we use the word aberrá, i.e. transgression] would be breaking the Shabbat. Jewish Law states that any Jew who makes fire on Shabbat has commited a grave transgression. Since most "Jews" today drive a car of internal combustion on Shabbat, that on itself is considered "creating fire," and therefore it is a transgression.

So going back to your questions: Since children from the Anusá maternal line remain Israelites ad infinitum, they are still Israelites [alt. Jews] according to Jewish Law. So the descendants of the Spanish Anusim are Jews, eventhough most might be practicing Catholics. The Anusim's children belief system or "religion" does not change the fact that they are still Israelites.

The term "anusim" is not exclusive to the descendants of Spanish Jews converted to Catholicism. It is a legal terminology that can be applied to any Jew in their circumstances.

As far as speech, word usage does not determine nationality. Or is it that using the words Chocolate (from nahuatl, Xocolatl) or the the word Tomato (from nahuatl, Xitomatl) would make you Mexican?

If you can help me to clarify this succintly on the article, it would be helpful.

Thanks Dramirezg for your response. Two points:

• First, of course I understand that word usage does not in itself determine nationality or religion. My question was a purely factual one, about what religion is actually practised by the people called Anusim in Spain. This is not a question of Jewish law, but of a present-day fact. Do these people go to a church, or a synagogue? If their Spanish ancestors resumed the practice of Judaism some time after their forced conversion, when did this happen, and under what circumstances? If they never resumed the practice of Judaism, then do they still retain Jewish traditions, such as the use of Hebrew loanwords, even though their families have been practising Catholics for five hundred years? Regards, --Saforrest 05:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I would recommend two excellent books on the subject. One about the period of forced conversions (1391-1492), Henry Kamen's The Spanish Inquisition; about those Anusim who returned to Judaism, Miriam Bodian's The Hebrews of the Portuguese Nation. Literally, the Anusim have kept on returning during the last five centuries, the last big case in group has been those in Oporto, Portugal, during the first-half of the 20th century. Some have preserved Jewish traditions, most without knowing it. Others may not have, but overall, the religous patterns of Anusim can be extremely diverse. On the psychology of Iberian Anusim across history, consult José Faur's In the Shadow of History. --Dramirezg 07:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Secondly, your description of "Israelite" as a maternally-inherited ethnicity which cannot be lost even with conversion to another religion seems to contradict the claim in the article that the reason the Anusim are still considered Jews (or Israelites) is that their conversion was forced. If even willing converts (and other Jews who have transgressed Jewish law) are still Israelites, then how is it possible for an individual to lose "Israelite status"? Regards, --Saforrest 05:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Your second question falls on the issue of Jewish behavior, not on the issue of birth-right. Again, the axial, pivotal, revolving aspect of Jewish behavior centers on the commitment to Jewish Law and traditions. Even when transgressing, the Israelite remains an Israelite, albeit by birth-right. However, such transgressing Israelite cannot function fully as a Jew within the community. What does this mean in practical terms? For example, a Jew is commanded not to transgress on Shabbat, or Jewish Sabbath. A typical way today to transgress the Shabbat is by the act of driving a car of internal combustion. Combustion is Fire, and the Jew is forbidden to create fire on Shabbat. Since Jewish Law, both in the Pentateuchal agreement (five books of Moses) and in rabbinic tradition, prescribe that a Jew who transgresses the Shabbat is denying the sign of the Covenant, he is therefore denying his belonging to the people of Israel as a Nation. In laymen terminology, is sort of like a traitor to the Nation, and therefore punishable by death or banishment (this last one I have to double check).
  • In rabbinic interpretation, such person is considered an unreliable witness. What does this entail in practical terms? Many things: If male, he cannot be counted as part of a quorum of ten necessary for Jewish prayer; he cannot read his own portion of the Torah (Pentateuch); he cannot be trusted in issues of Kosher food or wine, that is, a Jew cannot eat at his table; he cannot serve as a witness in a Jewish wedding or divorce. Among many things. In older times, such person was persuaded to change his ways, but if unsuccessful, the community pretty much acted as he did not exists, and sometimes the family would disown him.
  • Rephrasing your answer, the Israelite does not loose his Israelite status of birth-right, just certain priviliges of participation within the Jewish community are revoked.
  • Today, this is next to impossible to enforce, as most Jews are Shabbat desecrators, plus many are not even aware of all this I have just told you. Can you keep a secret? ;-)

--Dramirezg 07:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a meshumad is also legally a Jew. The difference is that a voluntary apostate cannot claim the benefit of his Jewish status, though he is still subject to its burdens: his status exists but is in abeyance. An anús has full Jewish status for all purposes.--Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 14:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to make a clarification on the Jewish status of Sabbath-desecrators. Most comments seem to be right on target on the fact that such individuals retain their Jewish birth-right but lose certain communal privileges (such as serving as witnesses and being counted in a minyan). However, according to Maimonides, a person is considered a public Sabbath-desecrator ONLY if he PUBLICALLY does something that is known to the masses to be violation of the Sabbath's rest (see Hilkhot `Edut/Laws of Witnesses, Ch. 12). Today we have a situation where most observant Jews rely on fake `eruvin to carry in the public domain on the Sabbath, which is forbidden from the Tora, but since most are unaware of the prohibition, they would not lose their communal privileges becauce of this (despite the fact that they are indeed transgressing). On the other hand, those who drive a car on the Sabbath would lose their communal privileges, for this is widely-known form of desecration. --Nathan613 01:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the definition of meshumad is right: I think it is confined to one who voluntarily converts to another religion. Einstein was not an apostate: he was simply a lapsed Jew.

Other related terms are:

• apikoros: a Jewishly educated person who comes to deny the basics of Judaism (e.g. Elisha ben Abuyah). This differs from a min, who is usually a member of a heretical sect, such as the Sadducees
• mumar: rebel against Jewish observance (one can be a mumar le-dabar echad by renouncing one particular mitzvah)
• tinok she-nishba: one kidnapped in childhood, who disobeys Jewish law by ignorance through no fault of his own
• am ha-aretz: Jewishly ignorant person.

The overwhelming majority of non-observant Jews today falls in the last category! --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 14:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir Myles,

The rabbis beg to differ on your opinion. Read the treatise of Aboda Zara in the Talmud Babli. Also, Maimonides codifies "Meshumad" as the following: Two are “mešumadim”: a) the “mešumad” for only one type of transgression; and b) the “mešumad” in relation to the whole Torá. The “mešumad” for one type of transgression – that is whoever is stuck to a [determined] transgression, making it consciously and knowingly, becoming accustomed [to it], same way with lighter [transgressions], for example, to dress with [clothing made of] “ša‘atnez,” or trim [the hair in a round manner, without leaving the sideburns on the head, on each side,] the peá, making it appear as if this precept [was inexistent] void for the whole world – this is a “mešumad” in relation to such thing [i.e. the given precept]. This is, if done with the intention to provoke. [In regards to] the “mešumad” for the whole Torá, this is that who turn to the laws [as creeds] of the gentiles, when these decree religious persecutions, uniting with them, saying: “ – What gain do I have in remaining united to the People of Israel, who are humiliated and persecuted? It is better for me to unite to those whose hand is powerful!” – this is the “mešumad” for the whole Torá. [MT Book of Science, V: Chp. 3, 18]. For a sensible assessment on the Biblical and Talmudic sources regulating this position, see Foot Moore’s Judaism (Hendrickson, 1997), pp. 460 – 473.

As most Jews today are outright Shabbat desecrators, it follows most Jews are in the status of "Meshumadim."

Also, I will share with you a recent response I received to Hakham Oliveira regarding the status of "Meshumad."

As for the question of "meshumad", as it relates to those who believe in the "Kabbalah" [medieval Jewish mystical lore begun in France 12th c.], this does not make them into meshumadim, since there is absolutely no problem in believing about reincarnations or not, having [or not having] understanding about the superior worlds as sefirot. If the person believes in the thirteen principles -- and the former is not included [in the thirteen principles] -- he's a Jew, and not a meshumad. If he believes in banalities that are not outright desecrations of the Toráh, we cannot consider them as minim, and much less as meshumadim. Because of this, [people] like rabbi Iossef de Efraim Caro, as rabbi Menashé ben Israel, as rabbi Ia'aqob Sasportas, among others, are kesherim.

The term "meshumad" is applied for two cases:

a) For a person who left one of the precepts, [this one] is a meshumad for one of two things in the Toráh, and the Sages call them Meshumad leMisswáh Ahat, or leDabar Min haDebarim, or lidbar Midiberehem.

b) For a person who left the whole Toráh deliberately. This included those who admit another form of faith, and I do not mean "Cabalismo", but Christianity, Islam or similar, which are declared denials of the Toráh and its truth. This [meshumad] is called Meshumad leKhol haToráh Kuláh.

Some [rabbis] pretend to include the Anusim in this [category], due to the fact that they chose to remain in their places of origin in moments when they could flee. It is clear these are rare cases, but it cannot be taken into account. For the cases of kiddushin and gerushin, if they were any, this can help for defense against such people [this in reference to contemporary ignorant rabbis who may consider Anusim as Mamzerim; case which cannot be applied because the kiddushin of Anusim could not be valid, as they were Shabbat desecrators, and therefore their witnesses invalid too. Having no valid witnesses, no valid kiddushin can be performed]. Not that the Anusim are really Meshumadim. This only [is used] as a strategy concerning the halakháh.

Hence, herr Einstein was a Meshumad. Best Regards. --Dramirezg 01:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we really differ here. Maybe I was remembering a censored edition of the Mishneh Torah, which uses "mumar" (rebel) instead of "meshumad" (apostate).

Maimonides' category a) is the same as my "mumar le-dabar echad". Note that it only applies to those who renounce a given observance "le-hach'is", as you say, with intention to provoke. It does not apply to casual non-observance, for example because one has been brought up that way, or has fallen into lazy habits.

Category b) is the apostate to another religion, and Maimonides seems to regard this as of the essence, not as just one example. Someone who has simply lapsed into complete non-observance, but still believes in God and identifies as a Jew, would not qualify.

Einstein would not come into either category, since as far as I know he was not brought up orthodox. A better example would be Spinoza, who did indeed break from Judaism in an act of deliberate rebellion even though he did not convert to another religion.

There are all sorts of disqualifications miderabbanan (for example, as a witness) for people who habitually desecrate the Sabbath or otherwise do not live respectable Jewish lives. None of these would be necessary if all these people were automatically meshumadim. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 11:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir Myles:

I think there is a problem with semantics. Maimonides does not use the word Mumar.

Secondly, if you were to read more carefully, the way RaMbaM breaks "Meshumad" down is in the following order:

1. the Meshumad who transgresses any of the commandments.

2. the Meshumad who transgresses the whole Toráh

Of the Meshumadim who transgress any of the commandments, Maimonides' codification separates those who casually or intentionally transgress any particular comandment (The “mešumad” for one type of transgression – that is whoever is stuck to a [determined] transgression, making it consciously and knowingly, becoming accustomed [to it], same way with lighter [transgressions]). And then he identifies those Meshumadim who do it out with the intention to provoke. Hakham Oliveira gives us these categories too.

Then we have the Meshumadim for the whole Toráh [Meshumad leKhol haToráh Kuláh], of whom Maimonides says there are those who purposely leave the whole Toráh, to turn to different laws; note that he does not mention "conversion" to another religion. In Jewish thinking, Law does not mean only the Written Law, but also the Oral Law. One cannot be without the other.

In this last category of Meshumadim we can include the "Reform" Jews as they have denied rabbinic tradition. "Conservative" Jews are in the first category, as they only break certain commandments without abandoning rabbinic tradition in toto.

"Believing" in the God of Israel does not save either of them from the classification of "Meshumad". A kasher Jew cannot have a "belief" without "action".

There is an underlying current in all this, that even though the Jew may have been raised as a 'am aress, it does not exempt him from performing the misswot, specially if he has every opportunity to do so. A lot of Jews today know that driving in Shabbat is wrong, even though they were raised accustomed to it. They cannot be classified as 'am aress in this particular instance, or can they?

By the way, the Sages recommended us not to mingle into 'am aress:

“‘am haress are despicable, and their wives such as vermin, and to their daughters one must apply the verse, ‘Cursed be those who lie with all kinds of beasts!’” (Deut. 27:21). [M. Pesahim, 49a]

The implications of a Torah transgressor are several. As you had mentioned, one of them is that they cannot be witnesses ('ed), but also that they are classified "as gentiles" (ke goy) or worst than gentiles. Not that they are actually gentiles [their biological right as Jews is not cancelled], but that they are not kesherim (like gentiles) to be used in Jewish ritual, for example, be counted for minyan. Read the following responsa from early 20th c.:

4. Haham Joseph Hayyim of Baghdad [“Ben Ish Hai”], teshuvot Rav Pe’alim, vol. 3, Orah-Hayyim 12

A question from the city of Shanghai, with regard to a person who publicly desecrates the Shabbat by performing work for himself and for others: can he be counted for a minyan, and can he be called up to the Torah...

And also: if such persons who are ineligible to be counted for a minyan want to say kaddish, are they permitted to do so? And [if they do so] should others answer “Amen”?

Teshuva: Any Jew who publicly desecrates the Shabbat, i.e., performs work [m’lakha] in the presence of ten Jews, has the status of a Gentile, and does not count for a minyan. And not only if ten were present, but even if he desecrated [the Shabbat] in a public place where his actions become known to many, is regarded as having desecrated publicly.... From the way the question is phrased it is clear that this person performs these acts in a publicly visible place and he realized that it would become known, so that even if ten were not present he is regarded as a Gentile. And it is also clear that he does so usually, on every Shabbat, and his actions are known to all.

Thus, the person you are asking about, because he publicly desecrates the Shabbat, cannot be counted as constituting ten for kaddish or for kedusha and similar matters […]

Therefore, [you should ensure that] there should be present ten persons, besides him. And do so in a manner that it is not obvious nor noticed by him, lest there be hatred and enmity, or lest he be driven further away [from religious observance]. For the joining together [for minyan] is done in synagogue, where many are present, and you shall covertly make an effort that ten kosher persons will be present besides those who are unfit, and you will easily be able to do so.

However, with regard to calling him up to the Torah, if he will not be called up to the Torah he will notice this, and this will cause hatred and enmity, and there is concern that he might be driven further away [from religious observance] – especially in these times. However, this can be averted… by calling him up after the obligatory number have already been called up. And if the congregation sees that there are hatred and enmity and quarrels if he is not called up at the beginning on Shabbat and on Festivals, so, call him up for one of the obligatory ‘aliyyot, but make sure that when the next person is called up, the reader begins to read from the place that the previous one began [….]

And what you asked, if the ineligible persons who do not count for minyan want to say kaddish, what should be done, and should the congregation answer “Amen” after them ?

Teshuva: They cannot recite kaddish in a manner that causes the obligation of the public to be fulfilled. However, to avert hatred and enmity and quarrels, you should not prevent them from reciting kaddish, and you should not say to them: “Your kaddish is useless”. Rather, allow them to recite kaddish. But, the hazan should recite kaddish along with them, to fulfill the obligation of the public. Thus, the public will have their obligation fulfilled by the kaddish of the hazan, and answer “Amen” to the kaddish of the hazan, and they [= the ineligibles] will not notice this and thus hatred will not be born. Because, you will follow this custom all year round: the hazan will recite kaddish together with whoever says kaddish, even though they are ‘kosher’ – so that when such ineligibles happen to say kaddish this will not be noticeable in anything [unusual] the hazan does, because it will be his custom to always say kaddish.

{trans. Prof. Zvi Zohar, at Bar Ilan Univ.}

The way rabbis get around this halakháh today, the loophole, is that if they do not presence the Jew breaking a misswáh, particularly the one for Shabbat, they assume they are kasher for minyan. Albeit, knowing that it is public knowledge, they bent backwards to the limits of this permissibility.

Best Regards. --Dramirezg 15:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously know a lot more about all these things than I do, but I shall have one more shot.

Maimonides' mention of "turning to different laws", in its context, clearly does mean "other religions": in the passage you quote, he says "turn to the laws of the gentiles ... adhere to them": it is not a question of the distinction between written and oral laws. And where he says "when these (gentiles) decree religious persecutions" he puts it beyond doubt: he is clearly thinking of Christian and Muslim persecutions.

It was common usage in the Arabic of his time (e.g. in the works of Averroes) to call the three Abrahamic religions "thalatha ash-shariāt", "the three Laws", and he is here using "Torah" as a translation of "shariah". Similarly, when he says that an idolater may not study Torah, he says "yaamod be-torato", which may mean either "let him stick to his own religion" or "let him remain in his own legal status".

As I read the Ben Ish Hai, he is speaking of the disqualifications miderabbanan, and does not actually say that these people are meshumadim.

Interesting as these discussions are, the main point is that disqualifications caused by simple non-observance of halachah are too far from the subject of this article. The article is about "anusim", in the sense of forced converts. The question is "Does conversion to another religion affect one's status as a Jew?" The answer given is "No, if one is an anús; yes, as concerns the right to exercise it, if one is a meshumad". Of course one may also lose the right to exercise Jewish status through abandonment of tradition falling short of conversion to another religion. But this fact, however true, is irrelevant in the context. The article should therefore be pruned in such a way as only to discuss the issue of conversion, forced or voluntary. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 21:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir Myles,

The context that Maimonides uses "laws of the gentiles" has to do with everything outside Jewish tradition as formulated by the rabbis, which comprehends the Written and Oral tradition. Therefore, anything outside this realm is considered "gentile." It is also important to note that Maimonides is giving us a summary of the Talmudic discussion, one occurring within the definitions of the halakhot themselves. There is more than what meets the eye and splitting hairs he does not touch upon this particular codification, but noticeable as one reads along his opus.

The context he uses "laws of the gentiles" is anything outside rabbinic tradition. It could be Islam, Christianity, Communism, Free-enterprise Capitalism, etc. On itself it could be anything regarding the action of adopting ways and customs outside what the rabbis formulated for proper Jewish behavior.

If for example, we live in a country where is common to drive on Shabbat, and therefore some Jew thinks is OK to drive on Shabbat, as every body does it, then the rabbis consider this as "turning to the laws of gentiles." There is no need to formally recant Judaism; when it comes to breaking the Shabbat, as long as the Jew does it, he has recanted Judaism privately; if did he it in front of ten (kasher) Jewish witnesses, he has recanted in public.

The context in which Hakham Hayyim develops his teshubáh follows the lines of the discussion of meshumadim, and anyone familiar with the discussion knows this. He does not have to say outright the word "meshumad." Anyone familiar with the halakháh knows he's speaking about a "meshumad." It is obvious from the nature of the discussion.

As it comes to the particular melakhot of Shabbat [where making fire and transporting in public are two concerns to the act of driving a car], the melakháh of making fire is mide'Oraita and punishable by hayab karet (death); the melakháh of transporting something in public is mideRabbanan and it is punishable by hayab malkhot (wips). It is not just a "simple non-observance" as you put it, particularly when knowing that Shabbat is one of the two of the signs of the covenant (the other is circumcision). The observance of Shabbat not only upholds the giving of the Toráh at harSinai, but it also is witness to the cornerstone of Judaism, which is creation ex-nihilo. Breaking the Shabbat -- even if the Jew "believes" in the Shabbat -- leads to denying harSinai and creation ex-nihilo ever happened.

And with all due respect, this discussion is everybit relevant to the discussion of "anusim," as we are discussing what qualifies someone as a Jew who is kasher, and a Jew who is pasul. The determination of who is kasher or pasul revolves on the issue of Jewish behavior, otherwise also referred to as "observance." "Conversion to another religion" is only peripheral to the rabbinic concern, and only important if done out of conviction or out of coercion of some kind. The initial rabbinic concern is one of the behavior of the Jewish individual.

You should know that the rabbis considered the "anusim" kasher, meaning they were kasher witnesses, therefore their weddings and testimonies valid, and so there was their wine and shekhitáh. This happened as long as the rabbis knew they were shomer Shabbat, shomer Kashrut, shomer Tefilah, etc., to the best of the possibilities; despite they had to go to Church, take a Eucharist, eat pork or recite Hail Mary in front of the priests or other Old Christians and apostate Jews (minim). The conversion by force -- and their coerced public non-Jewish behavior -- does not alter the kasher status of the Jew.

It is also important to note that of those forced converts, if they knew that they would lapse into non-observance on their own volition, the rabbis would call them meshumadim.

Lastly, of those Jews who converted to Catholicism out of conviction, as it was the case of Abner de Burgos, the rabbis called them minim.

All these issues are evident in the rabbinical responsa of Spanish rabbis from 1391 to 1492. Some of which you can view in the Hebrew original at www.judaismo-iberico.org.

I think there is an initial confusion with the notion of "Shemad" as perceived today. However, when we review the minutiae of Talmudic discussions, and the attitude of the rabbis up to the present century, you will realize that the notion of "meshumad" as "convert to another religion" is imprecise.

Best Regards. --Dramirezg 17:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article is reading like a tear-jerking "take-me-home-with-you" PR piece and had a few violations of

• "For example,
  Salomon ibn Verga http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=55&letter=I
  , who was converted to Catholicism by force in 1497 yet remained observant of Judaism, was an anús."

Ibn Danan lived in the 15th c. Check http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=9&letter=I&search=danan

Your "corrections" are baseless, and your criticism read as a slash back with a hue of hate. --Dramirezg (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely we don't need to make judgements on the status of any individual at all: I would rather omit discussions of Freud and Einstein from the article. On anusim, I think Isak was distinguishing between first-generation forced converts, where everyone agrees they are kasher Jews and need no reconversion, and n-th generation Latino groups, like the Iquito Jews, with some vague tradition of marrano descent, where we cannot be sure they are halachic Jews by descent anyway (they tend to trace descent by the paternal line). --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the date (18c) given for Ibn Danan in the article is wrong. the accents on the names are Spanish, not English. in the Wikipeia entry Saadia_Ibn_Danan, his name is given as Rabbi Saadiah ben Maimon ben Moshe ibn Danan (Hebrew: סעדיה אבן דנאן‎) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.213.178 (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone making changes to this entry please sign your name, and provide documentation for what you're saying. Please keep intellectual honesty intact. Saying the same thing over and over does not make it a fact or truth.

Those who keep insisting that Anusím need conversion, please come forward with your proof. --Dramirezg (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, I've got to say it's a dreadful article. It plunges straight into the minutiae before any part of the basic issue has been explained, is entirely argumentative in tone and is written in such a way as to be incomprehensible to anyone but a rabbinic scholar. Also, what on earth does it mean by saying "the Sephardic tradition from which all authentic responsa stem"? True, most of the learning on the specific issue of anusim is in the context of Spanish forced converts and is therefore likely to occur in Sephardic sources; but it sounds as if the article is dismissing the whole of Ashkenazi Torah learning in principle. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I'm an BneiAnus who went through a return ceremony that was reall just a conversion ceremony but just not called that. What's the big deal about conversion. I know some Jews find it offensive but Gerim are considered kosher Jews. I think that the conversion issue should be mentioned in this article because it is at the heart of the question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.209.17.69 (talk) 13:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Sir Myles, the very subject is very rabbinic in nature, and it cannot be easily be explained in a Western context. In regard to "dismissing" Ashkenazi Torah learning, the problem is that as any judicial process, legal decisions depends on precedence, and all precedence is on the Sephardic court. I did not mean to be disrespectful, but just stating the reality of things. Ashkenazim did not deal with the issue of Iberian Anusím at all, so therefore they have no authority to discuss the matter without precedent.

Please read the treatises of Hilkhót Abodá Zará and Hilkhót Teshubáh in the Mishnéh Toráh. You still do not have a clear idea of what a meshumad means, and what are the implications. It is not matter of opinion, but a matter of statuary Law. These issues are settled in our legal texts.

I liked your "tiding up", but the second point you raise needs to be erased, since such question does not come up in the responsa. It is already assumed a priori the person is an anús, therefore he is already being considered a Jew. AGAIN, quote your sources about the point you raise.

As to regards to conversion, the "big deal" is that the person who claims to be an anús, and accepts conversion as a gentile, effectively is saying he is not an anús; gentiles are considered as not having parents. Secondly, by saying the berakháh for conversion, being an Jew-anús, it is unnecessary, and therefore it becomes an unnecessary blessing and incurs in a blessing in vain, which is taking the name of God in vain (berakháh leBataláh). So the person transgresses two commandments, one positive and one negative: 1) Honor of Parents and 2)Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord your God in vain. Transgressing these two are HUGE aberrot. I explain more points as to why it is a "big deal". Do you fear God?

I have been researching the issue for 10 years, and I find it quite offensive people say things out of thin air. Please read my presentation: http://www.scribd.com/doc/5052621/Treatment-of-Iberian-Anusim-SCJS

--Dramirezg (talk) 01:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, the second question is the heart of the conversion debate. You have presented your case. But to make sense of the debate, we must present the other side too. And as far as I am aware, those who do insist on conversion for the people in question do so because of doubts about lineage and for no other reason.

You yourself, in your edits, say

The usual roadblock is "proving" Jewish lineage before a Bet Din. In Jewish Law, there are only three ways to prove Jewish lineage:

a) Through (kasher) Ketubot (Jewish marriage certificates) of the parents. A kasher Ketubáh is the one made before two valid Toráh observant Jewish male witnesses.

b) Two kasher (religiously Torah observant) Jews witnessing that a person is a Jew.

c) Hazaqáh, or force of tradition, which can be the trust of your own statement or the family traditions.

and that is precisely what question 2 means: the conditions for Hazaqáh.

Yes, a person who is certainly an anús is, by definition, certainly a Jew, and ought not to undergo conversion, for exactly the reasons you have stated. (Though I'm not sure about the berachah le-battalah point. So far as I am aware, the berachah in question is that for tebilah. Any Jew, at any time, may undergo tebilah and say the blessing: is there another blessing specific to converts?) There is no argument about this. The question is: here is a person of Iberian descent, with a family tradition saying "we are Jewish anusim": do we believe him? or is it possible that, though this tradition has been passed down the paternal line, at some point through the centuries someone took a Gentile wife? To say "he's an anús, and therefore he must be Jewish", is to beg the question. If it turns out, on investigation, that his maternal line is not purely Jewish, (i.e. if the hazaqah argument is not accepted in his particular case) then it's not a question of saying that anusim in general, or this particular anús, is not recognised as Jewish, but of saying that he is not an anús at all.

I am not calling the results of your learning and research into question, but only talking about how best to present them. If the responsa say "we believe claims of anús status in circumstances XYZ, because of the principle of hazaqah", well and good. But let's not muddy the waters by saying that it's a question of whether to recognise anusim as Jewish. If the issue is sometimes presented this way, it's a lo davka, rather like when someone explaining English legal procedure might say "a murderer can be charged in manner X", when what we mean is that a person suspected of murder may be charged in manner X, and that the whole issue is to establish whether he is in fact a murderer or not.

On Sephardim versus Ashkenazim, we are not in factual disagreement. I'm only saying that the sentence left an unfortunate impression, which I'm sure you didn't mean: the insertion of a phrase like "on this particular issue" would have cured it.

Nor do I see why you say I still don't understand about meshumadim. In my edits to the article, I have explained a meshumad as someone who voluntarily abandons the practice of Judaism, in whole or in part, whether or not in the course of conversion to another religion. That is exactly what you said in your earlier edits to this talk page. And I know perfectly well that a meshumad loses the rights that come with Jewish status (such as being included in a minyan), though not Jewish lineage as such, and that that is why we need to distinguish anusim; I agree the article could be revised to clarify this.

I'm not denying that the content of the article is bound to be technical and hard-going in nature. I'm just saying it can be led into a little more gently (for example by explaining the above point about meshumadim to set the context) and sound a little less like arguing with an opponent whose case is never put. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir Myles,

I am throughly sympathetic with your questions, but this is the bottom line. The same questions you raised can be applied to nearly all Jews living today, and if you carefully read my explanation on further down you will find:

If we compare the situation of Iberian Anusím with Secular, Reform or Conservative Jews, the situation is practically the same. Neither can provide kasher Ketubot or kasher witnesses, and if we investigate the customs of the much of assimilated Jews, they do not even have family traditions of Jewish observance, as they behave like Gentiles in every way.

Now, do I have to explain to you as to why Secular, Reform or Conservative Jews do not have kasher Ketubót or witnesses -- and not even Hazaqá? And how do you explain Orthodox rabbis freely accept these so-called Jews without factual halakhic proof of their lineage??

I think you are entering a tangent that does not bear central relation to the article itself. The article itself has to do about WHAT is an Anús. And that is what the article explains, in other words, that they are Jews under a forced condition to live against Jewish Law. That is where it should end, other issues notwithstanding.

How the rabbis confirm status, that is another issue entirely -- and it bears into not just Anusím, but every Jew. Do you want to open up another article? The bottom line is that raising questions about the lineage of Anusím does not come up in the Responsa. Confirming the Hazaqáh of Iberian Anusím is very complex, and one has to be throughly familiar with historical, cultural and halakhic issues. And primarily, this Hazaqáh has to be confirmed through the maternal line; the paternal too, for issues of Leviím and Kohaním. It is not very simple to explain, and I am not going to give this information in public that could be used erroneously. And yes, one has to take it based on his whole statement. We have been doing this for thousands of years. Do you think that persecution after persecution, and galut after galut, all records were kept intact? This is where that halakháh comes from (among others):

Whosoever comes forth and declares that he is a priest is not to be believed, and may not be elevated to the status of a priest on the strength of his own statement . . . if, however, he speaks in all innocence, he is to be believed. How so? It happened that a man said in all innocence, “I remember when I was a child and was borne on my father’s shoulder, that they took me out of school and removed my shirt and immersed me, so that I could eat of the heave offering that evening; and my companions kept their distance from me and called me “Johnathan, the eater of dough offering.” Thereupon the saintly Rabbi Judah ha-Nasi elevated him to the status of a priest on the sole basis of his own statement.(‘Isuré Bi‘áh, xx, 17; Sekhirut v, 8.)

Berakháh leBataláh bears issue when saying any blessing in vain. When a Gentile goes to Miqwéh for purposes of conversion, the intention is to say the berakháh with the purpose of conversion. If a Jew goes to Miqwéh with the purpose of conversion, and says the blessing, he incurs in Berakháh leBataláh, because a Jew does not need a conversion (gerút).

An Anús who accepts to be treated as a Ger (convert), and continues saying he is of the Anusím, incurs yet into another aberrá (transgression), which is that of lying -- because emphatically he accepted not being of the Anusím when he agreed to be treated as a convert.

Although, in reality it does not affect its Jewish status by birth, the external consequences is that before the Bet Din and the community he disrespects himself and dishonors his parents, and that blemish will remain with him all the day of his life for people will continue considering him a Ger, not only leading himself to sin but others as well. --Dramirezg (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)--Dramirezg (talk) 22:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm only saying that, to make sense of the debate, the article needs to say that, when current "Orthodox" authorities require anusim to undergo conversion, it is on the ground of lineage, i.e. they aren't convinced they are anusim at all. It is quite right to point out that these people are often utterly inconsistent on the question of how much proof to look for, and that this is often motivated by political liking and disliking for different groups, e.g. all the argy-bargy about the Ethiopians.

However, once there is genuine doubt whether someone is Jewish or not, I cannot see that it is wrong for him to undergo conversion "in case" he is not a Jew, while simultaneously being required to give or receive a Get "in case" he is one. We do the same when a person is doubtfully betrothed. And in saying the berachah, he should form the intention "if I am not a Jew, I intend this to operate as a conversion; if I am one, I intend it to be a normal tebilah"; or possibly say the berachah without shem or malchut; at any rate, it is not beyond the wit of man to devise a way round it. I do agree that this is the coward's way out, and that where there is proper hazaqah we should rely on that. But once more, it is a question of presenting both sides of the argument.

In my experience (but I am thinking of England) Orthodox rabbis are very sticky about the lineage of Conservative and Reform Jews; if such a person wants to marry in an Orthodox synagogue, he has to show an Orthodox ketubbah somewhere in the maternal line, or he's landed. The reason for this is that otherwise there might be a Reform convert, or a mamzerut situation, somewhere along the line. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 08:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir Myles,

First, Wikipedia is not a place for debate. It is a virtual Encyclopedia, and as such, it deals with definitions.

Second, there is only one halakháh, and it is the responsibility of the rabbis to apply it consistently. Otherwise, they contrary the decrees of the Sanhedrín, and therefore they are liable of death, and excision from the World to Come.

Third, if a person is already considered an anús, he does not need to go through conversion. On that, the Orthodox "authorities" are wrong, if they recognize they are of the "anusím"; otherwise they are considering them gentiles, and should say so. On what authority, and what basis, do Orthodox rabbis disqualify the claims of the anusim. I have confronted Orthodox rabbis across the world, big and small, and they cannot come up with an answer. They do it on pure whim, and as such they become disqualified, unfit to serve.

Fourth, halakhically speaking, the person brining doubt is responsible to research the records of the family, NOT the person who is held in doubt. And only in issues of marriage should those records be researched by the person bringing doubt. The halakháh is: Posel BeMumó Posel, that is, that who disqualifies is because he is an invalid himself. In other words, those who bring doubt on others, it is because they too are in doubt (of their valid descent).

Fifth, when performing a blessing you cannot do it with double-intention. There is no such thing in Jewish Law. What you're proposing is a huge aberrá, and it is still Hilul haShem. Tebiláh for issues of Niddáh is only done at night; Converts perform tebiláh during the day. Jewish men are not required to perform tebiláh for issues of impurity, unless there is a Temple standing.

To this day, I have yet to have heard one Reform or Conservative be put through conversion. 95% of Ashkenazi Jewry today do not have a kasher ketubáh. So, where are the rabbis performing their conversion?? --Dramirezg (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do wish you wouldn't lecture me as if I myself were proposing the conversion solution. So far as that goes, I am on your side (probably); and I was agreeing with you that there is culpable inconsistency in people's approach. I'm just talking about how to present the issues.

However, Wikipedia is not a halachic resource. It is there to describe the social reality on the ground, which is that while you and like-minded people argue one way, many Orthodox batte din operate a different way. It should not then rule on which is right, and who is liable to excision and exclusion from the world to come. At present, the article reads like a responsum.

If, as you say, Wikipedia deals with definitions, then "who is an anús" (and "how do we know") is every bit as relevant as "what are the effects of being an anús".

No there is no wholesale conversion of Conservative and Reform Jews. But there are certainly people excluded from marriage in an Orthodox synagogue for this reason; and conversion would be no good in this situation, as there is also the possibility that they are Jewish but mamzerim. (There is a similar question on how to deal with the Karaites, and there is no agreed solution.) --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse my general ignorance, but I feel it important to add that, based on:

* Hazaqáh, or force of tradition, which can be the trust of your own statement or the family traditions.

there is at least one Jewish legal precedent for disallowing Hazaqáh. I cannot recall the source, but it was of a man whose family had been secular Jews for (some number of ) generations, but family tradition held that they were Kohein. The man himself had returned to Jewish observance (I think it should also be noted that there was no question of his being an Israelite, as he clearly was not made to convert) and wished to marry a woman, but the woman was a divorcée. A Beit Din ruled that since his family had been secular for so long, the family tradition could not be relied upon. I suppose this also means he must have been stripped of his Kohein status (such as it was), but the point is that where there is no Jewish observance whatsoever then the status of the family members as witnesses in Jewish law is, as I read it, not valid. If I run across the source again, I'll add it here.

(Squeedle) 6:56 PM Monday, September 08, 2008 Standard Time +0000 UTC —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course there he wanted not to be a Kohen, so he had an interest in presenting his family tradition as sketchily as possible! --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir Myles,

I forward my sincere apologies for my often passionate, and somewhat abrupt answers. The Internet is perhaps the least likely medium where to discuss these issues, as they require some depth and discussion. I do not mean to "lecture" you, nor I am trying to "win" a debate. But I think we both can disagree on how we approach the article.

I approach the article from the point of view of definitions. You, on the other hand, from the "social reality". An encyclopedia is not the medium for reflecting a "social reality". Please check the definition of an encyclopedia.

The very word "anús" has a definition in Jewish Law. It has been determined by the Sages of Israel, it does not change. And apple continues being an apple; it does not become an orange. I do not deal with the issue of "WHO", but on the issue of "WHAT".

If you want a place where to discuss the issue of "WHO", please open a blog, ask as many questions as you want, and we will seek the answers and discuss as much as we want.

"Orthodox" Bate Din are not God; they are not the Sanhedrín, in other words, they cannot change the law at will.

Jewish reality is dependent on the halakháh, and it is free from whimsical manipulation. It takes no genius to know that a Jew who eats pork is a sinner, a meshumad. I do not need a rabbi to tell me that a Jew who knowingly and willfully eats pork is a meshumad, because I can consult it in Jewish written and oral Law that clearly says that such a Jew is a meshumad.

If tomorrow there comes a Bet Din (with semikháh) or a Prophet that says it is "kasher" to eat pork, it takes no genius to know that -- according to the halakháh -- that such Bet Din or Prophet are wrong, and therefore liable to be put to death.

If you cannot agree on this simple point as to the limitations of the authority of the the rabbis of today, you and I cannot come to an agreement -- ever. The "social reality" does not affect the halakháh; it allows us to deal with it, but it does not change our Jewish reality. A pig will remain a pig, and never become a cow.

Be more than aware that what a lot of what "Orthodox" rabbis do today is not kasher. The fact that they are "Orthodox" and that they are considered "rabbis" does not make them right according to the halakháh.

Without a kasher ketubáh there is no danger of mamzerím. Only a Jewish woman properly wedded with kasher witnesses can commit adultery, and therefore produce mamzerím. Jewish Concubines and Prostitutes can sleep with every Tom and Jerry they want, and all their children will be kasher for marriage. That is the law. Please read the very last responsa by Hakham Bensión Uzziel in my presentation. It explains why.

The kehunáh of a Kohen is a complex matter. The issue of 'edut for hazaqáh is also complex. But to contrary what you say, Hakham Yosef Karo says in his Shulkhán Arukh, treatise 'Eben haEzer, that the 'edut of an anús who claims to be of the Kohaním is valid as long as there is another anús who corroborates this claim, even if it were of those anusím from 200 years ago (!!). He is not pulling it from his cuff; there are solid Talmudic reasonings behind this.

There are many gradations, Sir Myles; reason why all this information regarding Anusím cannot be presented in a short and terse matter. For example, in issues of 'edut, one can trust the 'edut of a Am haAress (neophyte) in issues of monetary claims, but not for issues of murder.

Imagine, you yourself being a kasher Jew (I assume) is having difficulty grasping these concepts, what hopes does a mere neophyte has??

For this reason, I am reestablishing the article as originally published. All the intrusions have made it more complex, and unnecessarily argumentative. I only meant to put it as a definition.--Dramirezg (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does not follow that I have "difficulty grasping these concepts" because I differ from you on the proper functions of an encyclopedia.

A work confined to definitions would not be an encyclopedia but a dictionary. In that case this article could read simply "An anús is a Jew who is prevented from living a kasher Jewish lifestyle through force majeure and by no fault of his or her own. Such a person is counted as a kasher Jew for all purposes" and then stop. No one would disagree with this, even the rabbis and batte din whom you say have been getting things so wrong.

An encyclopedia is a work that purports to present the entire world of knowledge. However, on questions of religious debate it must remain neutral: it cannot say "Judaism is right and Christianity is wrong", or "Orthodoxy is right, Reform is wrong" however many editors think there are unanswerable logical arguments for these propositions. It can only say "There are Christians, who think and do this, Orthodox Jews, who think and do that, and Reform Jews, who think and do the other".

In this case there are halachic debates going on, however wrong-headed and untenable you consider one side of them. For you to say "there is only one halachah, and that alone should be presented" is contrary to the functions of an encyclopedia. And again, the fact that I say this does not mean that I do not understand halachah. It only means that an article must present both sides of the debate or neither. You cannot infer anything about which side of the debate I consider to be correct. Nor am I saying that rabbis of today have authority to change the halachah: I am only saying that the fact that they hold certain views and operate in a certain way (however wrongly) is an encyclopedic fact like any other.

To take one example: I never said that anusim claimants were rejected because of the suspicion of mamzerut, I said that Karaite, Conservative and Reform Jews were sometimes not allowed to marry for this reason. It is by no means universally accepted that, e.g. a Reform marriage is incapable of producing kiddushin (and therefore mamzerim). R. Moshe Feinstein did say this, and his view has been widely accepted, but the opposite view is held by some earlier authorities (see S.M. Schwadron, Teshuvot Maharsham vol. 2 nos. 110 and 167). So if we are honestly to present the issue of the halachic validity of Reform marriages (obviously not in this article), we must record both views and not judge between them.

More pertinently, you have clearly got a great deal invested in this issue, and have explained that you have asked for explanations from "Orthodox" rabbis and batte din of their current stance, without getting an answer which makes any halachic sense at all. Can I venture one possible explanation for their apparent change of front? (Once more, may I emphasise with all the force at my disposal that what I am about to say does not purport to be halachah, and does not represent my own views. It is a thought-experiment, speculating about how these people may think.)

Our imaginary rabbi or bet din might say "In previous centuries, claimants to anús status came from countries where Judaizing was punishable by death, and there was therefore no inducement to claim to be a Jew when you were not, quite the contrary. The factual presumption therefore is that all such people and their families were indeed under compulsion, and their evidence and hazaqah could be relied upon without any need for further investigation. In modern conditions, where there is no compulsion, and any "anusim" families could have freely reverted to Judaism any time in the last hundred or two years and have voluntarily chosen not to do so, the factual presumption is the other way, and we do indeed have to look into the question of lineage." Now I'm quite sure you have a convincing and compelling answer to this. All I want to know is: has any of the "Orthodox rabbis across the world, big and small" whom you have "confronted" on this issue ever come up with an argument on these lines? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 10:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir Myles:

My comment regarding "these concepts" is regarding the grasp of halakhic concepts. The comment had nothing to do with our disagreement of WHAT consitutes an Encylopedia. But since you bring it up, here are some definitions:

Britannica defines "Encyclopedia" as:

Reference work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or that treats a particular branch of knowledge in a comprehensive manner.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines it as:

A comprehensive reference work containing articles on a wide range of subjects or on numerous aspects of a particular field, usually arranged alphabetically.

In Wikipedia, one of the characteristics of an Encyclopedia is:

The encyclopedia as we recognize it today was developed from the dictionary in the 18th century. A dictionary primarily focuses on words and their definitions, and typically provides limited information, analysis, or background for the word defined. While it may offer a definition, it may leave the reader still lacking in understanding the meaning, significance or limitations of a term, and how the term relates to a broader field of knowledge.

To address those needs, an encyclopedia treats each subject in more depth and conveys the most relevant accumulated knowledge on that subject or discipline, given the overall length of the particular work. An encyclopedia also often includes many maps and illustrations, as well as bibliography and statistics. Historically, both encyclopedias and dictionaries have been researched and written by well-educated, well-informed content experts.

On that note, who has dealth with the issue of Iberian Anusím and has the "most relevant accumulated knowledge of that subject or discipline"? Sephardím or Ashkenazím?

Answer: Sephardim!!

Who are the most well-educated and well-informed content experts on the Anús issue?

Answer: Sephardim!!

I guess I have reunited all the encyclopedic criteria to exclude the Ashkenazi debate altogether. I do not mean to be disrespectful or "racist"; I am just sticking to the criteria for this post.

As to date, there is only one Ashkenazi letter (which cannot be called a responsa in the classic sense) on Anusím, by Rabbi Aaron Soloveitchik z"l, and even this letter (which by the way, it was not written by him, but just given to him to sign) says that Anusím are to be treated as Jews in every way.

If in fact what you say is true that Rabbi Moshé Feinstein says that Reform and Conservative Jews are to be consider mamzerím, as with Qara'im, then no Sephardi or Oriental Jew could marry 95% to 99% of Ashkenazi Jewry. This is popostrous. Marriages with Ashkenazim of all walks of life happen everyday, and this issue is not raised in the least, as far as I know. Mamzerím can only marry Gerím, and there is not enough Gerím to go around to make this possible. I am not sure if you're understanding the absurdity of the matter at hand.

I am in no position to read the responsa you cited at the moment. If you can post a link to it (if it is on line), I will be more than glad to read it and analyse it. Nonetheless, the reason why there is the possibility that the children of Qara'im could be mamzerím, it is because the marriages of Qara'im are considered Kasher for us Rabbanites, but their divorces are considered Pasul. The 'edut of a Qaraite for marriage is recognized by Rabbinites on the grounds that they are strict on the Laws of Shabbat; you do not have this issue with Reform and Conservatives, because these do not respect the laws of Shabbat. We can even marry an Israelite-idolater, whose parents were idolaters, with kasher witnesses and all, and the marriage is kasher; you can find this information with the RaMbaM and the Talmud.

Therefore, where there is a Pasul divorce, should that Jewish woman divorcee remarry, the children of that second or subsequent marriage(s) will be mamzerím. Yet it does not condemn every Qaraite to be a Mamzer. This was never the case since the 8th c. CE, when the sect of the Qara'im was created. The Rabbinites and Qaraites of Egypt intermarried for centuries, without ever having this issue placed in a dogmatically universal way. Of course, there had to be an investigation if there was ever a Qaraite divorce in the family; there are ways to resolve it halakhically.

Another thing, "being widely accepted" does not make it necessarily halakhically correct. There is a range of issues that Ashkenazim and Sephardim do not see eye-to-eye, some of overreaching consequences. For example, and this is just one example, Sephardim -- and generally all Oriental and North-African Jewry follow this rule -- are forbidden to read from an Ashkenazi-prepared Sefer.

Why? Because Ashkenazím do not prepare the hide according to Talmudic Law (with the exception of very few Haredim), therefore, their Seferim are rendered Pesulím. One cannot make Aliyá over a Sefer that is pasul.

They key here is not that it was said by a Sephardi, Oriental or North-African Rabbi; the key here is if it follows Talmudic Law, which is the core of Rabbinic Tradition.

A major difference between Ashkenazi pesukím and the rest is that Ashkenazi decisors diverge from Talmudic law in a range of issues. Eventhough Ashkenazím are the majority today, and hold most of the political-rabbinical power, does not obligate us the rest of Jews to follow their decrees; more so if these contradict the Talmud.

Yes, I have invested a great deal regarding this issue of Jewish Status; it is our obligation as Jews to study the whole of Jewish Law: This is why. But I am unwilling to put this information on-line, A) Because it is a complex subject to be exposed only to those individuals with a rabbinic education, and B) It is forbidden for Gentiles to study halakháh, and for a Jew to teach it to them. This last prohibition also applies to Jewish unbelievers (miním), and rebels (mumarím). --Dramirezg (talk) 17:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I really cannot see the relevance of any of this: I was no longer addressing the Sephardi/Ashkenazi issue. You have also misunderstood what I said about R. Moshe Feinstein. HE held that Reform marriages are invalid, and do not become valid by cohabitation, so that no question of mamzerut can arise. It was the OTHER (minority) view, of R. Schwadron, that said that Reform marriages could be valid, and that therefore when someone from a Reform community presents himself for marriage we need to investigate in case there is mamzerut. No one, as far as I know, holds that Reform Jews generally are mamzerim. (I don't know if these sources are on line, but they will certainly be on the Bar Ilan Responsa disk if you have access to this.)

Let me make my point once more. I am not disagreeing with you on halachah. I only claim that an encyclopedia has to describe the physical and social reality as well as the halachic ideal (and not confuse the two, I'm not saying modern practice changes the halachah). Suppose that you are right, and that the generality of (Ashkenazi-controlled) rabbinical authorities and batte din have diverged seriously from Talmudic law. An encyclopedia, to be comprehensive, still has to say "The Talmud says X. The widespread modern practice is Y, which its proponents attempt to justify by argument W (cite). Many authorities (cite) claim that this is an illegitimate deviation from Talmudic law."

Your last point (about Gentiles not studying halachah) actually favours my side. Wikipedia is a public resource. It should therefore present the social and historical realities of the Jewish community, rather than becoming a halachic treatise. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir Myles, Thanks for clarifying the Feinstein point.

I did not mean, however, that Ashkenazi poskim "have diverged seriously" from Talmudic law; only key issues. I think for the most part, Ashkenazim and Sephardim agree on most things; but there are key aspects that makes our socializing difficult.

Anyway, I think you do make a good point, but introducing the "modern practice" makes the whole thing confusing. I do not want to include it for political reasons. It gives legitimacy to "modern practice." That is the last thing I want with the article.

To say "modern practice" contradicts Jewish Law is insulting and politically incorrect. It creates controversy, and I do not want to be insulting to current Orthodox rabbis, although they deserve it.

Iberian Anusím will never gain strength if they see a one-way road. Many seeking their roots do check Wikipedia. Ultimately, they do not need the rabbanut to form their own communities.

No Jewish community is dependent on the other. And historically, Iberian Anusim have never been dependent.--Dramirezg (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the section "Meaning and history of term" begins with "Jewish Law categorizes the status of a Jew according to his commitment to rabbinic tradition. The two most commonplace ones are: Min (apostate), for a Jew who basically denies the existence of God; and meshumad (heretic), for a Jew who does not adhere to the observance of Jewish Law." the most commonplace statuses of jews are observant and non-observant. apostates and heretics are not commonplace. this section should be re-written to either include most jews or re-written to state: "Two uncommon statuses of jews are:" --diremarc (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of the article, and the definition I put forward is in accordance to Jewish Law, not according to common parlance today. Being that this is an article that deals with a Jewish legal issue, the contradistinctions are necessary. --Dramirezg (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

article opening is biased and insulting, most jews are non-observant and are not apostates nor heretics

Sirmylesnagopaleentheda, without any discussion or response to my above section, undid revision 296698462 (see point 6.2 below), with the throw-off comment: "Observant" etc are not status at all, only description, and they are a matter of degree. Irrelevant to article."

Sirmylesnagopaleentheda is wrong - in his analysis and his refusal to discuss this issue:

1. observant is a status.
2. observant is not a matter of degree. for almost all jews, just as there is no such thing as "a little" pregnant, there is no such thing as "a little" observant. you either are, or you are not.
3. completely relevent to article. by his definition of status, most jews (all reform, reconstructionist and conservatives) are apostates and heretics. THIS IS WRONG AND HIGHLY INSULTING.
4. the jewish majority is non-orthodox.
5. currently, the article's disregard for non-observant jews is not consistent with the wiki NPOV mandate.
6. in light of the above, to be accurate and fair, to acknowledge the majority status of non-observant jews and to not enforce a particular POV, the article's Section 1, "Meaning and history of term", should begin with either:
   1. "Two uncommon statuses of jews are:"; or
   2. "In non-Orthodox Jewish culture, the parallel dichotomies of temple or non-temple, observant or non-observant, orthodox or non-orthodox, suffice to characterize a Jew's status. Orthodox Jewish Law categorizes the status of a Jew according to his commitment to rabbinic tradition."

-- diremarc _(talk) 19:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message. I think you have misunderstood the point of my edit, which was not in any way intended to be disrespectful to or dismissive of Conservative and Reform Jews. My point was simply this.

In Jewish law, in the form accepted by the Orthodox, there is a definite status of meshumad: non-observance can have the effect of disqualifying a person from certain ritual privileges. The article treats this at length.

In the non-Orthodox denominations, it is of course true that some individuals are more observant than others, and many are selective about what mitzvot they observe. This is treated as fully legitimate, as the whole point of Reform is to give the individual the right to choose his or her own level. I therefore stand by my statement that, in Reform, "observant" is a description and not a status and that it is a matter of degree. For the purposes of the present article the point is quite simply that, in Reform Judaism, there is no stigma or penalty attached to those who are less observant.

For this reason, the variety of levels of practice among the non-Orthodox is of purely sociological interest, and is not relevant to the subject of this article. The article was basically saying "In Orthodox practice, those who renounce the practice of Judaism are treated as partial apostates, and this is treated as a disqualification from Jewish status for certain purposes. But where the renunciation is regarded as being under duress, this does not follow and the person is regarded as Jewish for all purposes." In a non-Orthodox context the whole question simply does not arise.

None of this has anything to do with the question of whether, from an Orthodox point of view, Conservative and Reform Jews as such are meshumadim, and no such idea was in my mind when I made my edit. (And now I'm going to get a barrage from the Orthodox contributors!) --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to adopt the term Rabbinic tradition; the term "Orthodox" is a pejorative Jews of the Reform movement applied to their traditional contemporaries in the 19th c. And indeed, from a Sephardic and "Orthodox" view, Conservatives and Reform are heretics, much like Karaites were at their time; however, Maimonides ascribes the Karites of his time the status of 'anusim,' since they grew in a sectarian movement through no fault of their own. This too can be applied to Jews of the Conservative and Reform persuasion today. --Dramirezg (talk) 02:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. I've (again!!) changed the Hebrew transliteration of Bet to reflect classic Hebrew. Bet as 'V' does not exist in classic Hebrew. It is either B (without dagesh) or BB (with dagesh). Whatever defense one may have for Modern Hebrew, Jewish Law was not written with Modern Hebrew standards in mind. Please respect this.

2. Though this is not reflected in modern Hebrew-English dictionaries, etymologically speaking, the Hebrew term 'Min' corresponds more appropriately to Apostate, and 'Meshumad' to Heretic from the standpoint of root definitions. Please check both etymologies to draw your own conclusions, and compare them to Jastrow's Dictionary of Talmudic and Mishnaic terms.

3. Every term herein discussed is within the scope of Talmudic Law, and it is not meant to offend any Jew who might not necessarily be observant of Rabbinic tradition. Whatever the reader's ideological perspectives might be, please keep in mind this is an exercise to reflect historical legal accuracy of the term 'anus/ anusim,' which necessarily brings the comparison to the other distinctions of Jewish status to further elucidate the subject. Much like saying an apple is red, versus a green one, is an issue of consensus, regardless if a daltonic person is unable distinguish red from green.

I would like to thank, whomever he/she might be, the person responsible of editing this article to make it flow better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dramirezg (talk • contribs) 02:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. One could argue endlessly about the pronunciation of bet rafe. All we can say is that it is a matter of local dialect, and has probably always varied, depending on the pronunciation of the local languages. Where Arabic is the local language, the "v" sound is unheard of. Where Greek is the local language, "v" is used, because Greek beta has been "v" since the fourth century CE at the latest (and that may be the origin of the Romaniot/Italian/Ashkenazi pronunciation, as the ancestors of all these people spoke Greek in Roman times). Where Spanish is the local language, practice varies, as Spanish itself has evolved. The Yemenites are split: some use a "b" and others a bilabial v.

Dialect differences were already common in Ancient Israel. The Rabbis of the Talmud criticized the dialect of the Galileans as unfit for ritual. Rabbinic Tradition, as the language Academies of our day, determined the phonetic value of each letter. Not knowing how to pronounce Hebrew according to this standard would disqualify the individual to teach and read from the Torah, as well as performing prayers. --Dramirezg (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. No one from Bet She'an could be appointed a hazzan; but presumably they could function as one in Bet She'an itself. By the same logic, it has been held that an Ashkenazi may not lead a congregation of Sephardim but may lead one of Ashkenazim (see Zimmels, Ashkenazim and Sephardim, I haven't got the page reference to hand). But on certain intra-Sephardi differences (e.g. whether bet rafe is b or bilabial v, and whether tav rafe is t or th), I am not aware of rabbinic rulings either way and both are generally treated as acceptable. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 12:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. In Talmudic literature, "min" is best translated as "sectarian": the root notion is that it is one of the 57 varieties (to borrow from Heinz advertising) of non-standard Jew. The Greek "hairesis" expresses the same idea: it literally means "choice", then came to mean sect or school, without any pejorative overtone (Josephus says that the Jews are divided into three "haireseis", Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes), then came to be a term of condemnation for the deviant "sects". By the time of Maimonides "min" came to mean someone who denies fundamental notions such as the existence of God. None of this is covered by "apostate", which literally means "deserter". Nothing is ever quite alike, but this seems to me to be closer to "meshumad", which has overtones of rebellion or of abandoning Judaism in whole or part. Briefly: min, like heretic, refers to intellectual deviation. Meshumad, like apostate, refers to practical deviation. I agree, however, that the use of "apostate" to describe a meshumad le-dabar ehhad jars and that we should find another term.

"Apostate" denotes "standing apart" in Greek, which is in essence the idea behind the literal meaning of "Min", which is "Genus", i.e. a species of its own. "Heretic" as "Meshumad" just implies a deviance from the mean. Maimonides definitions are straight from the Talmud. --Dramirezg (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing Greek with Latin. "Stasis" in Greek means rather more than just "standing" (even though etymologically it does come from "histemi", I stand): its most usual meaning is "revolution" in the political sense. Before the word was appropriated by Christian usage, the only meaning of "apostasis" was rebellion or desertion.

As for "min", in the Bible and Talmud that means simply "kind" or "sort". The distinction between genus and species, and the technical philosophical use of "min" in the Middle Ages, is Aristotelian, and the Talmudic rabbis are unlikely to have had it in mind, even though it may be read into it by later authorities familiar with the philosophical use.--Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 12:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. I think that is exactly what I was saying. The whole discussion is intra-Orthodox (or intra-rabbinic tradition if you prefer) and is not meant to address varieties of practice among Reform or Conservative. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 08:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar what the Conservatives or Reform consider forms of heresy or apostasy, or even if they have one. Do you? --Dramirezg (talk) 13:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that it is not relevant anyway. Probably they would regard conversion to another religion as qualifying, but simple abandonment of practice as not qualifying. There is a source about Christian converts footnoted somewhere in the article on Who is a Jew?: I'll try to find it. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 12:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Here it is.

For example "...anyone who claims that Jesus is their savior is no longer a Jew..." [Contemporary American Reform Responsa, #68].^[1]

The Hebrew term which means forced or compelled, being spelled phonetically in the English letters, would be more correct as *anousim*.

Since this term is a plural word ... the singular (spelled that way) would be "anous" as in "ben anous" or "bat anous".

However, if the plural word in Hebrew is spelled (in English letters) as Anusim, then the singular would be Anus (which in English is a human body part) and the male and female respectively would be written "ben anus" and "bat anus" --- all of which is offensive to this people group.

So the most common (and acceptable) spelling of this Hebrew word is Anousim (plural) and Anous (male singular) and Anousah (female singular) as well as "ben anous" for son of a compelled one, and "bat anous" for daughter of a compelled one.

Please can someone make this correction? Yaffbatya (talk) 20:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the spelling somehow is the same. But does it matter at all the correct pronunciation of the two words is completely different?

The body part "anus" in English is pronounces "ay-nus," with a long vowel.

The Hebrew word is pronounced "a-nuss," with a short 'a' vowel, and with the stress in the last syllable.

An IPA clarification of the correct pronunciation of the Hebrew word wouldn't solve the problem?

Does all this make any difference? Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 20:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see that the correct pronunciation of the Hebrew word is already very carefully explained in the opening sentence. And addition of the correct IPA pronunciation of the word, which is currently missing, would resolve the problem I think, as far as I am concerned. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 20:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]