Talk:Judaism/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

In the opening, it says that Judaism has "clung" to a few principles. There is something about the word "clung" that seems inappropriate. "Clung" suggests desperation or something. Anyone else have thoughts on this? Framed0000 (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you about "clung." Also, this is a claim that I think only Orthodox and other more traditional Jews would make. I think most critical Bible scholars, including scholars within the Conservaive and Reform movements, would argue that the Israelites did not, or did not always, have these views of God, and that they developed over time. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I think there would be wide consensus that while Jews may not have always practiced the same rituals, Judaism has always clung to certain principles, including monotheism and social justice (tikkun olam). — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

PS: On re-reading this, I see the first editor's point is about the connotations of the word "clung". Maybe "Judaism has clung adhered to to a number of religious principles"? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be missing my point. This only raises the question of when "Judaism" began. If you insist Judaism always included the idea of Tikkun Olam, I think many historians would say you are talking about a religion that developed during the Babyloian Exile - not the religion of Abraham or the Children of Israel during the time of the kingdom. Orthodox Jews would disagre, they would say that this religion starts no later than Moses and perhaps as early as Abraham. We canot get around the fact that Orthodox and many non-Orthodox Jews believe that what we consider normative Judaism, or even elements of Judaism identifiable in the Hellenistic period, first developed at that time or rather developed a thousand or more years earlier. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

PS I still agree with the first editor that "clung" has connotations that are not appropriate and we should find another word. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. How's this for a first draft (my changes in bold):

Judaism differs from many religions in that in modern times, central authority is not vested in any single person or group, but in sacred texts, traditions, and learned Rabbis who interpret those texts and laws. According to traditional Jewish belief, Throughout the ages, Judaism has clung always adhered to a number of religious principles, the most important of which are is the belief in a single, omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, transcendent God, who created the universe and continues to govern it. According to traditional Jewish belief, the God who created the world established a covenant with the Israelites, and revealed his laws and commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai in the form of both the Written and Oral Torah, and the Jewish people are the descendants of the Israelites. The traditional practice of Judaism revolves around study and the observance of God's laws and commandments as written in the Torah and expounded in the Talmud.

What do you think? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I think your version is a big improvement. As long as we are fixing things, I think that Judaism has always (and now I am going back to Abraham) believed in a God who is both transcendent and imminent; we need to specify this. However, I am not sure that even the rabbis always believed God to be benevolent ... God's killing the firstborn of Egypt, as well as the flaying of Akiva, are important parts of the Rabbinic portrait of God. Benevolent really isn't a Jewish word, anyway - perhaps we can replace it by saying that Judaism has believed in a God who is both just and merciful - my sense is, the Jewish view of God always involves the tension between contrasting features (transcendent and imminent; merciful and just) and we should be using this language. Finally, rather than "adhere" why not say Judaism has forwarded, presented, highlighted, valued ... one of these words? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Why "learned" Rabbis? Should we also call corresponding offices in other religions "learned"? Or, perhaps, does this mean there are ignorant (non-learned) Rabbis who are not allowed to interpret stuff? Isn't this just hype, like saying my country has a "vibrant" culture, a "high-tech" economy and "beautiful" women? Do I need to put a "Citation needed" on "learned"? Fourtildas (talk) 04:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

"the belief in a single, omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, transcendent God" also needs a citation. Actual historians in actual universities think that jewish monotheism was invented in Iraq in 500 BC. This whole "article" is just a pile of Fourtildas (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems there is at least consensus over the word "clung." I will change "clung" to "adhered", and leave the theological discussion to you guys. Framed0000 (talk) 19:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Fourtildas, would that make Kings

Babylonian exile. --GHcool (talk

) 07:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It's mentioned further down under "Critical historical view". Somebody please provide sources for "many consider it the first monotheistic religion." and "Throughout the ages". I understand that the Jews (like most religions) believe that that have always believed the same stuff. They don't like to admit that somebody just concocted all their sacred beliefs at some time. But this is supposed to be an encyclopedia article about Judaism, not just a recitation of religious beliefs. It should tell me what actual academic scholars think, not just what true-believers believe. Fourtildas (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Critical scholars do not necessarily reject the view that the Torah is divinely inspired in some sense. Many of them are after all Christians or Jews themselves. They are engaged in a historical study, not a theologial debate.

Their theories do indeed conflict with the idea of Yahweh dictating the bible to Moses like a secretary but not with a more general ideas of divine inspiration.

This ought to be corrected, it is a serious misstatement of the academic view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MathHisSci (talk • contribs) 10:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a citation? Also, divinely inspired is bias, because it would mean wikipedia would be on the side of those believing in a deity. If you can find a citation from a proper source, it would seem appropriate to add your comment, provided it was properly cited. --

talk

) 20:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That science is silent on purely religious claims, like a certain book being Holy Scripture, is the norm and I do not think I am the one that has to justify that. Instead anyone claiming the opposite should justify that. Scholars do theorize that humans wrote the Bible but they do not say anything about whether Yahweh or some other deity might have inspired them to do it. I also said that the critical theories "do not conflict" with divine inspiration, not that they support it so there would be no siding with the theists if we clarified that. MathHisSci (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not have sources, but I am pretty sure Wellhausen was a practicing Christian, and Kaufmann an observant Jew. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

According to Jewish tradition, the history of Judaism begins with the Covenant between God and Abraham (ca. 2000 BCE), the patriarch and progenitor of the Jewish people.

No it doesn't, it begins with the creation, otherwise to recite kiddush on Shabbat and to say that it is a rememberance of the creation and that God rested on the seventh day would not make sense.

The above is a non-sequitor. That Jews celebrate the creation of the world does not mean that Judaism began with the creation of the world, you are illogical. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Judaism differs from many religions in that in modern times, central authority is not vested in any single person or group, but in sacred texts, traditions, and learned Rabbis who interpret those texts and laws.

Yes, but it does not differ in this respect from Islam. Some Muslims hold the view that Judaism and Islam are one and the same religion (reference later) See the wikipedia article

, and the first reference given on this: and article by Rabbi David Rosen. (links later).

Yes but the point is historical - Judaism may be the first religion to do this. Also, even if other religions do this, it remains an important element of Judaism. There is no claim that this is the only element of Judaism. This point is trivial. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In the news I see "Israel's chief rabbinate severed ties with the Vatican on Wednesday", "The Jewish state's highest religious authority sent a letter to the Holy See". [[1]] Sounds like a "central authority" to me. Fourtildas (talk) 17:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Several countries have Chief Rabbis. Israel has two. The Chief Rabbinate is a leadership position and political office, not a theological one, and the Chief Rabbi's decisions are not binding on all Jews. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The rabbinical courts decide who is Jewish enough to marry you. Surely that is a central religious authority.(I realize there are some fringe sects that don't follow these rulings). Please provide a source. Is it a religious doctrine that there should be no such authority? Fourtildas (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Throughout the ages, Judaism has adhered to a number of religious principles, the most important of which is the belief in a single, omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, transcendent God, who created the universe and continues to govern it.

Not according to Hillel, who was asked this question (to explain the torah while standing on one foot. His answer was "Do not do unto others what you would not wish done to yourself." (the negative golden rule)

Non-sequitor. Hillel's answer in no way negates the other position presented. Both are possible and there is every reason to believe hillel would have agree that there is a single omnipotent God. Hillel was not asked "what is the most important religious principle," he was asked to explain Torah; these are two different questions. Your comment is not logical. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This derives from Leviticus 19:18 "Love thy neighbour as yourself" and verses 33 and 34 - not to discriminate the stranger, you shall love him as yourself.

This means that the set of mitzvoth (commandments) between man and man is a better starting point that the set between man and God (ceremonial laws).

It might mean that Hillel might have believed it. At best this is one view among many. Another view is that the two approaches are both important and valid. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

A rabbinic general principle to act to prevent the suffering of living things tza'ar ba'alei hayyim is derived from several specific laws on this matter.

The essential view of Judaism is that the oral law supercedes the written law (this is stated specifically in the Talmud) and that there is a practical tradition regarding hospitality, non-discrimination of foreigners, to care for the widow, the orphan and the poor etc and that this is torath hayyim - the living torah.

The traditional practice of Judaism revolves around study and the observance of God's laws and commandments as written in the Torah and expounded in the Talmud.

This quote echoes the point you make just before it, so I assume you would agree. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it relies on distinguishing between good and evil, and doing good (Psalter ref later). In order to follow the torah without harming people and living things, it is necessary to have knowlege (this is one point where Judaism and Budhism coincide). Without knowledge, it is not not possible to do good and exercise compassion.

Agin you create false dichotomoes. Why can't stuyding God's laws be a means of learning to distinguish between good and evil and doing good? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The first prayer in the eighteen benedictions (tephilah)is for knowledge, insight, understanding, wisdom.

Therefore prayer and study are equivalent, and Jewish services include study (eg a recitation of the 13 priciples of interpretation of the torah of Rabbi Ishmael in the morning service) and Pirkey Aboth on Sabbath afternoons.

Another non-sequitor, this is just sophistry. Torah and Avodah are both important and no one denies this, but that doesn't make them equialent. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The qualities of God enumerated by Moses (hanun ve'rahum, hesedh) compassion, lovingkindness have been passed on to Christianity and Islam (where some words are identical in Hebrew and Arabic).

I do not recognise Judaism as a religion from the description in the article. It is presented as a fossilised, dusty, legalistic irrelevant religion and I know this from other sources to be a Christian view.

I do not know why you find the Torah and Talmud dusty, fossilized, or irrelevant. You have some bias against Jewish law, but what is wrong with Cristianity is not that they acknowledge the importance of law in Judaism but that they think it is fossilized and dusty. Since you think it is fossilized and dusty you think just like a Christian and it seems to me you are just pushing a Christian POV here. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This view is sometimes presented in church sculpture as the synagogue represented by a female with a broken staff (superceded by the church) The essential characteristics of Pharisaic judaism in Hillel's traditon are taken over by the church and Judaism described as a passé, fossilised religion 15:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC) RPSM (talk) 09:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the deficiencies that you've pointed out are more a result of secular academics thinking they know better. Whatever the case, you've certainly done this article good by noting some of the obvious flaws in the content. Still, I would caution that there are different views within Judaism itself about how it is distinct as a religion. As per Wiki practice,

show your sources. Nautical Mongoose (talk

) 20:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The wiki article kicks off with the introductory paragraph to the article on Judaism in the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1905 by Kaufman Kohler.[[2]] but incorporates none of the points made in that article as for example that Judaism has no dogma and no creed or belief system by means of which entrance is gained to the religion. The article is here:[3] What is the point of reproducing one encyclopedia by copying it into another? The question has already been asked on one wiki discussion page regarding The Jewish Encyclopedia of 1905. RPSM (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind comments. "Far from having become 1900 years ago a stagnant or dried-up religion, as Christian theology declares, Judaism has ever remained "a river of God full of living waters," which, while running within the river-bed of a single nation, has continued to feed anew the great streams of human civilization."

Then the wiki article goes straight ahead to expound the Christian theological position of Judaism as a dusty religion of rabbinic sophistry.

The Jewish Encyclopedia 1905 article says that entrance to Judaism is not by way or a creed or set of beiefs, and then goes on the quote Maimonides Thirteen principles of the faith as if it were a creed, which it is not. (No, you cannot find it in every prayerbook and it does not form part of any synagogue service and is disputed as being given too much importance.)

Judaism doen not work like Christianity and is not based on Christianity. Neither is Christianity based on Judaism. RPSM (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The latter may not be based on Judaism, but it originated in Judaism and therefore incorporates many things that can be traced back to Judaism. Debresser (talk) 01:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Today SLRubenstein edited the lead to read "many consider it a monotheistic religion". Does anyone not consider Judaism a monotheistic religion? There's also a markup error with that edit, so I'll probably revert the whole edit until this discussion is resolved. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If that is your only problem with what I wrote, I have no objection to modifying it. I realize now the phrasing is ambiguous. I do not think anyone questions that it is monotheistic; I do think there are scholars who resist labeling it a religion. Suggestions? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm new to commenting on Wikipedia so forgive me if I do so inappropriately. I saw earlier on this page the quote "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." Unless these scholars represent a large minority (and I find that hard to believe) you should not cloud the article. Furthermore, if their objections are based on a different interpretation from the majority of what is needed to be called a religion, the objections should be referred to in the article on religion. If a large minority of scholars differ in their interpretation of Judaism to the extent that they think it doesn't qualify as a religion, that must be stated here explicitly with citations.78.146.203.162 (talk) 15:23, 29 December 2008 (UTC) Jon.

There are a few problems with the version Steven J. Anderson reverted to. For one thing, some sloppy writing - "principles and ethics" well, aren't ethics a kind of principle? And doesn't principle leave out the whole notion of practice, which is central to Judaism? Also, there are a lot of historians who would argue that to say Islam "originates" in Judaism is at best a serious distortion; some question the same claim about the relationship between Judaism and Christianity. I tried to provide language that was more open to different views (without excluding this one view). Although Orthodoxy (and many Conservatives) claim a clear continuity between Rabbinic Judaism and Israelite religion, many historians question this, vigorously. Again, I didn't want to write anything that excludes this view, but the introduction has to be inclusive of other views. Many scholars question the appropriateness of applying the word religion to Judaism given that much of the Talmud relates to civil law and the Western notion of religion may not have existed in Rabbinic or even Biblical times. Again, this does not mean that there are no people who consider Judaism a religion, I know many do - but the introduction has to be written a way that does not exclude other significant views. One constant in the Bible (indeed, virtually every book of the Bible) and the Talmud and later Jewish literature is the notion of covenant, a term so central to Judaism that it is somewhat surprising not to see it in the intro; I remedied that. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I wasn't as opposed to the entire edit as it may have seemed from my wholesale reversion. I just saw what I thought were a couple of problems and figured the best way forward was to revert and start over. I have to run out and haven't got time to really look at it again. I'll post more later. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I restored what I wrote but made one change in an attempt to address your stated concern ... maybe you can come up with something better... Slrubenstein | Talk 19:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Are we referring to ancient Henotheism (ie: there are many gods for the various nations but my God can beat up your god) or to issues with modern Kabbalah? or something else, perhaps? Valley2city^‽ 06:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No, see what I wrote above. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that this page should have been written by an orthodox Jew so that this would be more accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylanluvr01 (talk • contribs) 02:07, February 5, 2009

There's enough religious Jews around here to correct whatever needs correcting. Debresser (talk) 01:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You mean make it biased to the jewish POV.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive commentaries in the future. Debresser (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

... It's not nonconstructive: if we allow somebody who will have a favorable view of the topic write it: it will have a POV in it, --Ssteiner209 (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Debresser. Regardless of how hard you try, it's very hard to un bias. --

talk

) 23:54, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The best way to address bias is to encourage loads of POV editing. Seriously. See

) 11:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I rather think that a Jewish person would probably know a bit more about the subject of Judaism than a Gentile would, Jakezing. If it has a "pro-Jewish bias" (whatever THAT means) as a result, you can edit it to your heart's content to improve it. After all, that's how the Wiki works. Asarelah (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh boy. Let's be

dan l'kaf zechus and assume that what Debresser means is that in light of the fact that there are many scholarly sources from the Orthodox perspective, but since a lot of them are only in Hebrew, there are enough editors to be able to use their knowledge of the Hebrew sources to inform their efforts to provide balanced and neutral content. -shirulashem (talk)

20:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, what I meant is that we do not need the article to be written by an orthodox Jew, because there are enough orthodox Jewish editors around here to correct any mistakes or POV's made any editor who is not an orthodox Jew. Debresser (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Oy. You're surely not implying that this article must be written only from the Orthodox view, are you? That is, by definition, NOT

NPOV. -shirulashem (talk)

22:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No, that is definitely not what I was implying. I said that there are enough orthodox as well as other editors to reach a nice, balansed, non-pov version. Debresser (talk) 06:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, good. B"H. Just making sure. ;-) -shirulashem (talk) 12:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone know what this means? I suggest it's removed. --Dweller (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

As it comes from the most authoritative scholar on the topic, and a verifiable reliable source, I see no grounds for removing it. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

No, but I think it should be modified to "Judean ethnos" or "Jewish people". The source refers to ethnos but not eáqnov. In any event, eáqnov is the Greek word ethnos. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:33, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

When I entered it in originally, I used Greek letters, or thought I did. I used the original book which had Greek lettering (I think Malik is linking to the preface or introduction; the page I actually quoted from - or the chapter ant any rate where Cohen provides an in-depth analysis of the origin of the word, he provides the actual Greek). I think since that time WIkipedia has changed its code. If someone can replace it with the Greek, I think that would be appropriate. We can then put "ethnos" as a transliteration after. That way we are true to the source and more accessible. Then the question is, should "ethnos" link to

Ethnic group or is there a more appropriate article to link to? Slrubenstein | Talk

20:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the term has become disconnected from "from the Greek Ioudaïsmos" with which it was originally coupled. It makes no sense where it is currently and I'm not sure what it adds anyway. Although I don't dispute it's veracity, this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, nor a Greek grammar primer, and showing the derivation from Greek is probably enough, without needing to show from where the Greek term Ioudaïsmos derives. --Dweller (talk) 09:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper. Keeping one Greek word adds information that will be of interest to some. Maybe not you, but few articles are of entire interest to everyone. Before I added this sourced etymology, there was an unsourced etymology that was not supported by any scholar of linguistics or of history. I see no problem with being clear. Why don't we focus on adding more quality sourced content, rather than discussing this trivial matter. One Greek word does a little bit of good and no harm. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"Ethnos" is a Greek word. I'd have thought eáqnov was merely an attempted transliteration or transcription of that Greek word:

εθνος

${\displaystyle \varepsilon \theta \nu \mathrm {o} \sigma \,}$

(I don't know how to do the "final sigma" character in TeX.) "eáqnov" isn't written in Greek letters at all. What's going on? Is "eáqnov" supposed to be a transliteration or is it an unsuccessful attempt at rendering Greek letters?

eáqnov was my attempt to copy a Greek word in a book (hardcopy) I was using as a source - I do not have the book on hand but believe the author used the original Greek in Greek letters in the text - to Wikipedia. I think I tried cutting and pasting the word I found in the book, from some online source. My recent edit "ethnos" was my guess of what that word should be transliterated as in our alphabet. But if something is screwy here, I think it is "ethnos" and not "eáqnov". Sadly, I do not have a hardcopy of the book at hand. It would be good to check it. Cohen is a very careful historian and the article (the book is a collection of previously published articles) is asking, "when did a word for "Jewish" that means something other' than "member of the tribe of Judah" first appear. Since there is no original concept for Jewish or Jewishness in Hewbrew (except as a member of the Tribe of Judah), the concept he argues (with good evidence) comes from Greek. His argument is that people got a concept of ethnicity or nationhood from Greek, and then applied it to themselves, and created a new Greek word to express a "Jewish" identity that did not hinge on being a member of the tribe of Judah ... and only later, did people take the Greek neologism and use it to create a Hebrew neologism (well, neologisms 2000 years ago). Part of his argument is that Jews were adopting a Greek concept of "eáqnov" so the original Greek word and what it meant to Greek-speakers 2000 years ago is important. Does anyone have access to a real library that has a real copy of Cohen's book? Google books only gives access to the introduction to the book which does summarize his conclusions but the scholarly research is in the body of the book. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

According to Jewish tradition, God established a covenant with the Israelites and their descendants, and revealed his laws and commandments to Moses on Mount Sinai in the form of both the Written and Oral Torah.

That is inaccurate. God revealed himself to the entire Jewish nation on Mount Sinai, and gave them the Torah. The Bible vividly describes God's revelation to the people. (This is essential to any article or entry on Judaism, as it reveals the validity of the religion. Hocker987 (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

So what the difference between you and the article? Debresser (talk) 12:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Hocker is right. There may be a differnce between the account in Exodus and in Deuteronomy but perhaps the solution is to reword it "revealed his laws and commandments to Moses and the Children of Israel on Mt. Sinai" (saying "Jews" is anachronistic). Slrubenstein | Talk 13:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Hocker's problem is that according to Jewish tradition the "to Moses" bit is only true for the Oral law, but is inaccurate for the Written law, which was revealed to all the people simultaneously, and, indeed, according to midrashic sources, all Jews who will ever live were there too and heard it. I'd suggest replacing the sentence with:

According to Jewish tradition, God established a covenant with the Israelites and their descendants, and revealed his laws and commandments on Mount Sinai in the form of both the Written and Oral Torah.

Hope that helps, --Dweller (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not stay closer to the wording of the Mishna (Avot 1,1)? Especially since not to mention Moses would be withholding important ad well-known information. What about According to Jewish tradition, God established a covenant with the Israelites and their descendants, and revealed his laws and commandments on Mount Sinai through Moses in the form of the Writen and Oral Torah? Debresser (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I like what you're trying to do, but it still falls foul of all the people hearing the Written Law. Perhaps we should spell it out then: and revealed his Written Torah to all the Israelites at Mount Sinai, followed by expounding the laws and commandments through Moses in the form of the Oral Torah? Perhaps could be polished, but is more accurate and easier to understand at a glance. --Dweller (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Very minor correction: under the Three Pilgrimage Festivals instead of Shalosh Regalim it should be Shlosha Regalim שלושה רגלים Talya Kurland (talk)

I've never heard them called that. Is that a Diaspora/Israel thing? --Dweller (talk) 18:18, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think you're just mistaken. It's definitly shalosh regalim. --Dweller (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

"Regel is female, so "shalosh". If it were male, it would have been "shlosha". Don't let the male "–im" ending trick you into thinking it is male. There are many words on "–im" that are female, and many on "–ot" that are male. Debresser (talk) 22:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The statement in the lead has no citation and uses

as the first monotheistic God and religion - it was the official national religion of the people of Egypt during the time of Akhenaton's rule and the Wikipedia article itself states "Atenism is one of the earliest known, well-documented, monotheistic religions".

There are whole books written just on the topic of Atonism and monotheism:

• [http://www.amazon.com/Akhenaton-Aton-early-eastern-monotheism/dp/B0006DLW6M Akhenaton and the Aton : The early spark of eastern monotheism]
• [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Monotheism-Akh-en-aton-second-Isaiah-Harrell/dp/B0007JCJHG Monotheism in Akh-en-aton and the second Isaiah]
• [http://www.amazon.com/Two-Reigns-Tutankhamen-William-Wise/dp/0595168647 The Two Reigns of Tutankhamen] quote "The new religion denied the existence of all other gods but Aton. It was a monotheistic religion - the first in the history of mankind."
• [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Akhenaten-Religion-Light-Erik-Hornung/dp/0801487250 Akhenaten and the Religion of Light] Amazon synopsis 'Akhenaten, also known as Amenhotep IV, was king of Egypt during the 18th Dynasty and reigned from 1375 to 1358 BCE. Called the "religious revolutionary", he is the earliest known creator of a new religion. The cult he founded broke with Egypt's traditional polytheism and focused its worship on a single deity, the sun god Aten.'
• [http://www.amazon.com/Philosophy-Literature-Politics-Essays-Honoring/dp/0826215920 Philosophy, Literature, And Politics] quote "institutionalized with the sun-god of Aton the first monotheistic religion in the expanding Egyptian empire."
• [http://www.amazon.com/Akhenaten-Dorothy-Porter/dp/1852426195 Akhenaten] "Akhenaten would have been an anomaly in the history of any country. He is credited with establishing the world's first monotheistic religion-the worship of Aten represented by the Sun Disk."
• [http://www.amazon.com/Nefertiti-Unlocking-Mystery-Surrounding-Beautiful/dp/0140258205 Nefertiti] quote "Akhenaten's Atenism has frequently been interpreted as the world's first monotheistic religion"

There are hundreds of others. Josh Keen (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I see the merit of your arguments, let me try to challenge them a little.

1. Atenism was pratices for only 20 years, according to our Wikipedia article. Which might turn it into no more than historic curiosa.
2. It might be that Judaism is called the first not so much in the purely chronological sense, but in the sense of being the first of a new type of religion, namely monotheism. There seems to be ample basis to support the thesis that Judaism was the first of the series Judaism-Christianity-Islam.
3. Atenism was practiced in the 14 century BCE. The historic date for the revelation at Mount Sinai is 1312 BCE, which is also (late) 14 century BCE. Add to this the uncertainty in dating Egyptian Pharaonic dynasties, and the question "who was first" becomes an uneasy one.
4. Do not forget that Judaism claims monotheism for 6 additional generations before Moses and the Sinaic revelation (from the times of Abraham, to be precise).

Debresser (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

1. Neil Armstrong only went to the moon once. He was still the first.
2. I do not know what you mean by it being a "new type of religion". Clearly Atenism was also a "new type of religion" - as the Amazon text above says, Akhenaten was the "earliest known creator of a new religion". The existing text in the article strongly implies a chronological sense - if this is not what is meant, then the text should be more clear - perhaps "Judaism is monotheistic, and predates Christianity and Islam".
3. The variation in historic dates for the rule of Akhenaten is only two years. Akhenaten proclaimed monotheism in year 9 of his reign, that would be 1342BC - 1344BC. That is still many decades before Mount Sinai. In fact, Akhenaten#Akhenaten_and_Moses states "Akhenaten appears in history almost two-centuries prior to the first archaeological and written evidence for Judaism"
4. This comes down to the question of when Judaism as a religion began. If it is claimed that this occurred during the period of Abraham, then all of the other Abrahamic faiths could also make the same claim to being the "first monotheistic religion". If it was at Mount Sinai, then it was too late to be the first.

Are there are citations to the claim that Judaism predated Atenism?

Josh Keen (talk) 12:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This very article says that "Abraham, hailed as the first Hebrew and the father of the Jewish people, rejected the idolatry that he saw around him and embraced monotheism". This is according to the point of view of Judaism. Since Abraham lived some 200 years before Moses, as far as I am concerned this is a conclusive refutation.

The main other Abrahamic religions - Christianity and Islam - were developed after Judiasm, so they can not make a claim to being the first monotheistic religion. The snaller Abrahamic religions and their possible connection to Judaism I am not familiar with. The article Abrahamic religions says about this "The Abrahamic religions are related to (or even derived from) Judaism", which also doesn't help very much in clarifying this question in a scientific way. Debresser (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll need to check this, but I'm pretty sure Abraham died a lot more than 200 years before the birth of Moses. I'll be back. --Dweller (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember he died precisely 200 years before the Sinai revalation. But memory does play tricks sometimes. Debresser (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Some OR: Abraham was 100 when Isaac was born. Isaac was 60 when Jacob was born. Jacon was 130 when he arrived in Egypt. The Israelites spent 430 years in Egypt. Abraham died aged 175. So 60+130+430-75=545 years. --Dweller (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The Israelites spent only 210 years in Egypt, not 400 or 430. This is a known mistake. But still safe to say that this was before Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten.

I still think that it is possible that the words "first monotheistic religion" might actually mean "the first of major monotheistic religions". This is what I meant with my first 2 arguments. Debresser (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article about Abraham says "Abraham lived AM 1948–2123". The revalation on Mount Sinai was in 2448, if I'm not mistaken. And yes 325 years is also what you get when you sustract those 220 extra years from the 545 you mentioned. Debresser (talk) 18:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Gotcha. Raised an eyebrow myself at 430. Still, 325 is a lot more than 200. :-) --Dweller (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I probably got mixed up because he was born precisely 500 years before the Sinai revalation, and I remembered there was some round number. Debresser (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Judaism is the first WELL known and sourced monotheism. I have doubts that at no point in the 8000/200k history of humanity there were not earlier one god religions.... and if we believe Hinduism, then we have the fact it's both poly and mono! Second: using the Jewish history would be unfair: Judaism has it's roots going back to adam and eve.... and it's not fair to use a calendar that says the roots of your religion were at creation. SECULAR HISTORY ONLY PEOPLE.

--Ssteiner209 (talk) 13:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This page is too long, please condense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.180.120.167 (talk) 12:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is very long, and probably should be summarized a little. Thanks for the suggestion. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I've seen articles a lot longer and a lot less informative. Debresser (talk) 09:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The Manual of Style says that "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose." This article is 53K and 8668 words. It also says that "One rule of thumb is to begin to split an article into smaller articles after the readable prose reaches 10 pages when printed." This article is more than 26 pages (stopping at the See also section).

As informative as the article is, it isn't helpful to the reader if she/he doesn't make it to the end. We should probably move portions of the article to separate articles and use

summary style, and where this is already the case, we should try to be more concise. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs

) 17:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that part of the Manual of Style, so thank you. I do see a contradiction here: 53KB and 8668 words are both still within the limits (since the extra KB's are probably images), but 26 is way over 10. Any explanations? Debresser (talk) 20:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I am generally in favor of creating separate articles over being more consize (because the latter usually leads to unclear and/or lacking information). Debresser (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I prefer long pages: morep t learn and less clicking ot get to the info. The manual of style is bull.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

That's a valid point of view, as far as I am concerned. Debresser (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Just a point I would like to make, having to navigate away from a page just to expound upon the information you need is a big detractor for the average consumer (a.k.a. reader) of an article. Most will want their information easily accessed and simple to navigate; as articles have quick-link categories the separation of articles into sub-articles detracts from the overall perception of the viewership. This is of course unless it is a branch topic that would warrant its own article like the countless number of links to specific nouns such as important people of a topic. 66.150.169.146 (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Taylor Apple Web Tool dev/DB engineer 15:12 July 28 2009

There is currently no article for either

) 04:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I do not know why wikipedia needs two articles on Paul, but as of a few days ago, we now have two articles. Since the new article is half about Judaism, I figure people who watch this article would want to edit that one too. Personally, I have NPOV and NOR concerns. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

where are the israelites?, the color?, the bible?, moses?, the authenticity?, the exoticism of ancient israel? put it in the article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.114.172 (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you understand that the article is on Judaism, not jewish culture, or jewish ethnicity. Technically, an Israelite does not exist anymore because the term for a person living in Israel is an Israeli. --

talk

) 23:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

If you were a bit more specific in your concerns, I'd be able to address them. Furthermore, what do you mean by "gothic?" Asarelah (talk) 16:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Luk originally locked this article against anonymous edits on on 12 May 2008. While I appreciate this is a hot button issue right up there with Islam and Kurt Cobain, I cannot see the catchphrase of Wikipedia's anyone can edit slide by without noting that it has been over a year since anon edits have been allowed on this article. Unlock it. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 10:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

In fact I only protected the article against moving, but considering how fast every attempt to unprotect was reverted due to vandalism, I'm not sure it'll go better this time than the others. -- Luk ^talk 12:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's try, but quite honestly, my money is on it being reprotected within the week :). -- Luk ^talk 12:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If that'll be necessary, make it indefinite. Debresser (talk) 12:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The request is specious. Anyone CAN edit -- with a login name. It's still as anonymous as an IP as long as you aren't using your full name.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the argument of "anyone can edit" is specious; I will not argue that point and will allow it to lapse. The rest of the argument is valid - this is a silver lock article that has been locked for over a year. While my money says it would be re-locked in less than three days if it were unlocked, it still should be unlocked at least once. Silver does not equal gold. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 15:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Erm, 71, the article was "unlocked" two days ago. --Dweller (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That the article has been unlocked is a great joy to me. That it has not already been relocked is proof I should not bet money on anything (no, I did not check the article's status before posting here, I was simply responding here). 71.234.215.133 (talk) 16:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Me neither, I was 100% sure we would have to reprotect it against "anonymous" editing within the week. :) -- Luk ^talk 07:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The article lead contains the claim, softened by some weasling, that Judaism is

• considered either the first or one of the first monotheistic religions
• is among the oldest religious traditions still being practiced today

both claims are completely untenable, and are in no way substantiated in the article body.

I have no doubt that these claims can be found in print, but then we all know that all sorts of claims are made about the antiquity of religious tradition all the time. The question is, who claims this, and is the claim notable enough for inclusion. It doesn't have any truth value, in the sense of not even wrong.

If you take the "age of a religious tradition" to be the oldest bit of surviving liturgy (as the Hindus like to), even if the religion itself has morphed beyond recognition since that date, the Age of Judaism would be about 3,000 years, compared to 3,500 years or so for Hindu traditions, and 3,000 years for Zoroastrianism. And, of course, 3,000 years for Christianty(!), since Christianity has inherited its scripture from Judaism. Which establishes why this measure of the "age of a religious tradition" is meaningless.

If we measure the age of the set of actual beliefs and practices, Judaism will probably date to about 1,800 years ago, Christianity to around 1,600, mainstream Hinduism to about 1,300, but things like

ritualism to close to 3,000 years.

Let's not even begin talking about monotheism. There are reasonable grounds for claiming that pure monotheism did not evolve until AD 600 or so, and then in Judaism, Christianity and Islam simultaneously. Trying to push back "monotheism" as far as reasonably possible otoh, we end up with Atenism.

I am not suggesting we insert these facts & figures in the article, I am saying the "oldest" claims need to disappear from the article lead, and if they reappear in the article body, they need to be cleanly attributed to whoever is making them. --

15:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

We had some discussion before, here on this talkpage in this section . There is no consensus to such an opinion, so I undid your removal of these "claims", as you call them. Please be advised, that you are not the first one to have given this subject some thought, and Wikipedia is after all based on consensus, not on anybody's personal opinion. Debresser (talk) 16:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please provide

reliable sources to back up this content? -shirulashem^(talk)

16:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look soon. But first let me say a few things, partly along the lines of what I have said before in the section above.

1. User:Dbachmann's statement that "there are reasonable grounds for claiming that pure monotheism did not evolve until AD 600 or so" is unsourced and makes the impression of a fringe theory. Actually, all of his statements are unsourced, unfortunately. One of his sources likely was [4]
   , written by Theodorus P. van Baaren.
2. The article specificely says that Judaism "is considered either the first or one of the first monotheistic religions", so there is no contradiction from the example of atenism.
3. Atenism was a shortlived religion. It was likely not widespread. It might perhas better be considered a cult, elevated temporarily to the status of state-religion by a local despote. The article on atenism gives every indication of this. (see e.g. Atenism#Decline_of_Atenism)
4. [5] says clearly "it is, however, clear that Akhenaton’s theology, if not fully monotheistic...", so that wasn't clearcut monotheism.
5. Judaism originates with Abraham, as stated in this very same article, who predates the time of atenism by about 300 years. (see Abraham#Dating_and_historicity and Atenism/Akhenaten for the dates)
6. In The Exodus it says that the exodus, and therefore the revelation on Mount Sinai, took place in "mid 15th century BCE". Many christian sources claim 1446 BCE (Google "Exodus 1446" and see). That is earlier than "14th century BC" claimed in Atenism. The traditional date of the Sinaic revelation according to Judaism is 1312 BCE, but with all of the uncertainties and conflicts in dating Biblical and Egyptian history, that doesn't really worry me.
7. We could always change this article to say "It is the oldest surviving monotheistic religion", and that would be undisputable.

Debresser (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Some sources I found:

• "Judaism is the oldest surviving monotheistic religion" [6]
• "Judaism is one of the oldest monotheistic religions" [7]
• "Judaism is the oldest surviving monotheistic religion" [8]

Debresser (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

So I think we can safely say "It is one of the oldest monotheistic religions, and the oldest surviving". Let's see if we can get consensus for that. Debresser (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, dab, it took you fifteen minutes to go from tagging something as dubious to giving up and removing it from the article. I have no problem with your putting on the "dubious" tag, but why not give people some time to ind sources? Debresser, I do not find any of your websites adequate. I would consider adequate works published by academic historians who specialize on these topics. Now, as for dab's claims: It will not be hard to find qualified experts who believe Judaism is the oldest religion still practiced today. I understand your argument that Judaism as we know it is "Rabbinic Judaism" which may even be considered a bit younger than Christianity. I would not object to adding this view to the article with a proper source (e.g. Boyarin's Dying for God). But that does not change the fact that other qualified scholars do in fact hold the other view, and that should be included too. Let's wait for Debresser to get a library card, and he may find some good sources for us. When i have a chance, I will look too. As for Judaism changing, well, we can easily argue that Christianity has changed so much since its founding that post Nicene Christianity cannot be compared to pre-Nicene Christianity. As for Hinduism, many historian consider Hinduism to be a construct of british and Brahmin scholars in the 19th century. Hindus will of course deny this, and perhaps some scholars, but it is widely held among secular historians of India, e.g. David Lorenzen's Who Invented Hinduism?. As for monotheism, there certainly is an argument that it developed amon Jews during the Babylonian Exile - Debresser, do not insult dab just because he did not provide a source. Maybe he knows one and was in a hurry. But do not confuse your not knowing a source for "therre is no source." I believe that Urbach makes this suggestion in The Sages (trans. Israel Abrahams, published by Hebrew University Press ... really Debresser, this is a scholarly source, not the BBC!), there are many Bible scholars who suggest the Ancient Israelites were henotheists. However, back to dab, there are also scholars sho claim antiquity for Jewish monotheism, such as Yehezkal Kaufman. Debresser, I wish you would not take this personally. None of our personal religious beliefs matter here, only finding verifiable sources for significnt views. So there is also no point in providing any arguments. i am not a professional historian, obviously you are not, and it is not our job to argue views, only to locate them in good sources.

Debresser, please do not rush to violate NPOV and NOR by suggestiong silly things like, "So I think we can safely say "It is one of the oldest monotheistic religions, and the oldest surviving"." Wikipedia is not about truth, only different views; there is no consensus among scholars that Judaims is the oldest monotheistic religion; your arguments are irrelevant. dab, please give some of us time to find them, okay? It may only take a few minutes to find a crappy source on the web, but if you want us to find good sources like leading historians, why not leave the tag in place a few weeks? And as I said to Debresser, your own arguments are pointless. Just provide reliable verifiable sources for significant views.Slrubenstein | Talk 18:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources come in various degrees of reliability. We should of course strive for the best sources available, but that does not preclude the use of other sources, as long as they don't fall in the category of unacceptable sources as outlined in Wikipedia policy. Furthermore, such sources will usually give an accurate indication or summary of what can be found in the better sources, once they will be found. So I do not think my proposal was rushing. At the same time I will, of course, welcome better sources then those available to me.

As to your words "there is no consensus among scholars that Judaims is the oldest monotheistic religion; your arguments are irrelevant". Please note that my proposed text does not say that "Judaims is the oldest monotheistic religion". As to my arguments, they were made for the sake of argument, by way of discussion. I am familiar with basic Wikipedia policies, contrary to what you seem to think of me, waving "NPOV and NOR" in my face. Debresser (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, Debresser, I should have known that the arguments were to make rhetorical points. It's just that in my expeience in situations like this resolution is usually achieved by agreeing on sources, and arguments usually escalate that. I just hoped to nip that in the bud. Oldest continuously montotheistic religion still practiced - yes, I think most sources would support you. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I am glad we understand each other. Debresser (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

you can take or leave my points about monotheism, as I was not suggesting they be included in the article (but see the monotheism article if you are interested). I thank Slrubenstein for pointing this out to Debresser. If I was trying to introduce some date for the evolution of monotheism into the article, you would be justified in asking me for my sources. Incidentially, the most quotable source in the book would be Freud's Moses and Monotheism (1939), which suggested that the Jews simply copied the idea of monotheism from Atenism. Of course, nobody accepts this idea today, but it is at least very quotable and very notable, and may serve to start out the presentation of the history of the debate. I.e., this reference is sufficient to state that "Freud suggested that Jewish monotheism has its origins in the Amarna period", but certainly not "Judaism is aged 3,400 years" in Wikipedia's voice.

My entire point is that

.

I frankly see no reason to leave a totally unsubstantiated and obviously flawed claim standing "for a couple of weeks" until somebody compiles a proper discussion. The article will be much better off by not including flawed material until somebody comes up with valid material.

If you find an actual academic scholar of comparative religion making the "oldest" claim, I will be ever so happy to have it in the article, with attribution. As it happens, it isn't entirely clear what "monotheistic" is supposed to mean before the appearance of Platonism and the development of

, not monotheism. When monolatrism turns into monotheism is anyone's guess, but it couldn't have happened prior to the Hellenstic period, because the philosophical concepts needed to distinguish monolatrism from monotheism simply weren't around before that. Judaism was signficantly involved in the evolution of monotheism, to be sure, and the article should do justice to that. But just throwing around some googled "oldest" claims isn't doing justice to anything.-- 08:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I added the sourced information outlayed before. If

User:Dbachmann would like to add a section to this article expanding this information, that would certainly be interesting. Debresser (talk) 09:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Improvement of the references would also be appreciated, as said before. Debresser (talk

) 09:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Dbachmann might also want to consider that babbling about various fringe theories is even less preferable than bringing googled sources. Debresser (talk

) 09:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Yhezkal Kaufmann is an extremely well-regarded historian, more recent, with the advantage of more recent research, and more influencial than Alfred Jeremias, who has argued that the ancient Israelit's monotheism was both pre-Babylonial Exile and sui generis. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

wow, so pointing out classic references notable enough to even have their standalone Wikipedia articles is "babbling about fringe theories". I think Debresser should ask himself if he has any sort of emotional involvement with this topic, and whether this is likely conductive to encyclopedic contributions on his part.

Debresser, I have offered you a cheap way of connecting Jewish monotheism with the Bronze Age: "Freud (1939) has notably suggested that Jewish monotheism originates in the context of

15:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

dab, I do not know why you continue to mention Freud. he was not a recognized expert in Ancient Near EasternHistory and I think has no reliability on this issue. Kauffman is a far superior source, as would be Bright and Noth - there are many good historians who are well-respected on this topic. Not Freud. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

dab writes,"When monolatrism turns into monotheism is anyone's guess, but it couldn't have happened prior to the Hellenstic period, because the philosophical concepts needed to distinguish monolatrism from monotheism simply weren't around before that." Is that your opinion? Do you have any support (Freud is not a historian and does not count) from a 20th century historian of Biblical history or Bible critic? I know for sure Kauffman rejects your theory (not that your personal theories have any standing at Wikipedia). Slrubenstein | Talk 18:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear

User:Dbachmann. There is no contradiction between my proposal and Freud's fringe theory. This should answer all your concerns. :) Debresser (talk

) 21:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Since

User:Dbachmann has repeatedly censored the line containing the "oldest" claim, including in its new version as I proposed here, I ask for mediation. My opinion is that this new version is true and undisputed (nothing said in this section disagrees with it); what is important in Wikipedia, sourced reasonably well; and has the ok of the other user who participated in this section. As such it can not be removed inside the rules of conduct of Wikipedia, and said user should refrain from doing so. Debresser (talk

) 21:35, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The Revelation on Sinai.

This is definitely a crucial Idea of the foundation of judaism which is not expreessed. "Still some more wondrous and imposing act of revelation was deemed necessary by God "to make Israel believe in Moses" for all time; therefore all the people were assembled around Mount Sinai "to hear the Ten Words spoken by Him from heaven," while at the same time His presence was manifested to them in a sight which made them tremble in awe before Him (Ex. xix. 9-xx. 22; Deut. iv. 10-v. 23, Hebr.). Through the Sinai assembly ("ma'amad har Sinai") the whole people became witnesses to the divine revelation, and at the same time were pledged to observe all the laws which God afterward gave them through Moses. This accounts for the prominence given in Scripture (Neh. ix. 13) and in the liturgy (Tamid v. 1, and the New-Year's musaf, "Shofarot") to the Sinai revelation.

Judah ha-Levi, accordingly, is in full accord with the spirit of Judaism when he declares the revelation on Sinai to be the great historical fact upon which the Jewish faith, as far as it is a truth revealed, rests ("Cuzari," i. 25, 87, 97; iv. 11); and this is also the rabbinical view. "The Lord appeared to the people of Israel on Sinai face to face in order to pledge them for all generations to come to remain true to Him and worship no other God." The Lord spoke with every single Israelite on Sinai, so that each heard Him say, "I am the Lord thy God"; as it is said, "the Lord spoke with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire" (Deut. v. 4). He appeared to them in differing aspects ("panim" = "countenance")—now with a stern and now with a mild face, corresponding to the varying relations and attitudes of men and times (Pesiḳ. R. 20-21; Mek., Beshallaḥ, Shirah, 3). As a matter of fact and in contrast to all other descriptions of God's appearances to man, which at a later stage were taken figuratively (Mek., Yitro, 3-4) or which called for soferic alterations (Geiger, "Urschrift," pp. 337-342), or in which "the glory of God" was substituted for His presence (Ex. xl. 34; Lev. ix. 23; Num. xiv. 21), the actuality of the theophany at Sinai was always accentuated, even by Maimonides ("Moreh," ii. 33)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frumdude (talk • contribs) 02:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Would people please comment here? I may overstate the case or oversimplify in saying that there is no idea of salvation in Judaism. My real point is that whatever Jews mean by salvation is so different from Christianity they are not well-served by being in one article. Perhaps Wikipedia could use a good article going into the long history of the concept of salvation in Judaism, but right now the current Salvation aricle is NOT "it" and I think the differences between Christianity and Judaism here are so great that it makes the intro an NPOV nightmare. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if there is any one position Judaism takes on predestination. My Rosh Hashanah prayerbook says "On Rosh Hashanah it is written/On Yom Kippur it is sealed...Who shall live and who shall die...who shall perish by earthquake and who by plague... who shall be troubled (?) and who shall not..." or something like that, suggesting that traditional Jewish ideas consider predestination to be an annual thing. 68.32.48.221 (talk) 03:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You are talking about judgment. What you describe is post-destination, not pre-destination. The judgment is being made after you have acted. The judgment your prayerbook refers to is not a judgment made about you for the following year, it is not saying you will live or die based on things you have not yet done, it is saying you are judged on what you have already done. This is as far from predestination as one can get. Every Jewish theologican I know of has God voluntarily limiting himself in someway in order to provide people with free will; I don't know of any Jewish theologian who promoted an idea of predestination. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

We seriously need an etymology of the term. Faro0485 (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I second that notion.--Kettenhunde (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The article mentions "major prohibitions exist on eating pork, which is considered an unclean animal, and seafood." In fact sea creatures with fins and scales are kosher. Shell fish, for example, is considered traif. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.10.168 (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this was updated to something like "certain sorts of seafood" now. Debresser (talk) 06:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Directly from the article: "some types of seafood" Looks perfectly accurate to me. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This sentence, in the article is problematic:

"Major prohibitions exist on eating pork, which is considered an unclean animal, and some types of seafood."

I've suggested two alternatives, only to be reverted.

There aren't really "major" and "minor" prohibitions. All prohibitions are of approximately equal status, as concerns the Jewish dietary guidelines. It would be hard to make a case that the prohibition on eating milk and meat mixtures, was greater or lesser than for instance the prohibition on eating pig, or lobster, for instance.

While the majority of biblical kosher violations carry a penalty of lashes, a few do carry the penalty of

cheilev). DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs}

) 12:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, pork is not the name of the animal. The animal that pork comes from is called a pig.

I am about to put the following into the article:

Meat from the pig is considered to be a not kosher foodstuff. Additionally, certain seafood items, such as shellfish, crustaceans, eels and many other creatures of the sea are considered to be not kosher foodstuffs.

Previously I tried inserting these alternative sentences:

1.) "Meat from the pig is not eaten, and some forms of seafood are not eaten."

2.) "Meat products derived from the pig are prohibited from being eaten. Certain seafood products are also prohibited from being eaten."

I think the above two sentences are equally appropriate. Bus stop (talk) 02:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Your focus on pigs in somewhat uneven handed -- pigs are essentially no different than any other nonkosher animal in terms of their "unkosherness." They are specifically mentioned in the Torah because they have one of the two kosher signs (they posses split hooves but fail to ruminate). The camel is also specifically pointed out, because it is the one example of a land mammal that we can point to that ruminates but fails to manifest split hooves. In a sense, then, the pig has come to represent nonkosher mammals for some time, and perhaps it deserves a somewhat unbalanced emphasis, as it is one of the few nonkosher mammals that is consumed regularly as a food item (it's not like dog or hamster is such a popular delicacy, at least not in the Western world.) But some mention of this should be included. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Do we say "not kosher" or "non-kosher"? Debresser (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, non-kosher might be preferable to "not kosher." Even unkosher or un-kosher is acceptable, I would think. Bus stop (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been following the recent changes to this section and Bus stop, I think you've made some interesting points. I've tried to write text that addresses your criticisms and stays closer to the tone and flow of the article. I've also tried to fix some of the errors and omissions about Kashrut in the article. --

) 03:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Very nice work, AFriedman. I have a few minor changes that I'd like to make, but overall your edits are a tremendous improvement over the section that was there before. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :). I agree that the section still isn't perfect, and I'd especially like to see other people improving the paragraph about Kashrut's rationale. I don't completely understand this myself, even though I observe much of Kashrut. Were you thinking about any other places to edit the section? Malik, I'd like to see your specific "minor changes." --

) 04:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of the changes were minor, grammar and such. The biggest change I made was in the paragraph about dishes and utensils; I hope my change clarified it a little and didn't muck it up. :-) — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You really did make the dishes section clearer and I've paraphrased it a bit. --

) 04:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I too have made what I consider to be clarifications, based on the fine work done before. Debresser (talk) 06:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised to read that Conservative Judaism would challenge the halacha of yen nesech. Is this true? Perhaps Reform is meant? Debresser (talk) 06:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, the problem is with the tense in this sentence: "Furthermore, Orthodox Judaism forbids the consumption of processed grape products made by non-Jews, since wines were often used in ancient pagan rituals" In the first clause, Orthodox Jews prohibit (present tense) consumption of processed grape products. Are we correct to infer that we are talking about grape products manufactured today? If so, how could they possibly have been used in ancient pagan rituals? Conservative Jews did not exist in ancint times but as far as I know all Conservative rabbis consider wine used in ancient (past) pagan rituals to have been (past tense) unkosher. We know of no wine made today that is used in pagan rituals, indeed, it is hard to imagine how anhy wine made today could be ttransported back in time to be used in ancient times. So the sentence about Orthodox belief is somewhat screwey.Slrubenstein | Talk 23:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

How about:

"There are concerns centering on wine made from grape juice, and even other food products made from grape juice. The concerns relate to the use of wine in both Jewish as well as pagan rituals. Jewish dietary laws can be expressed to require special supervision in the producing of such products especially wine. This requirement is more often the province of the Orthodox than the Conservative." Bus stop (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted this edit. It is wrong. First of all, you can't attribute to the source what it doesn't say. The way that paragraph was, was precisely according to the source, and according to the truth. The question of Slrubenstein notwithstanding. He appearently doesn't know the difference between "yen nesech" and "stam yenam". Debresser (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The relevant information I find from that source, "Judaism 101," is this:

The restrictions on grape products derive from the laws against using products of idolatry. Wine was commonly used in the rituals of all ancient religions, and wine was routinely sanctified for pagan purposes while it was being processed. For this reason, use of wines and other grape products made by non-Jews was prohibited. (Whole grapes are not a problem, nor are whole grapes in fruit cocktail).

For the most part, this rule only affects wine and grape juice. This becomes a concern with many fruit drinks or fruit-flavored drinks, which are often sweetened with grape juice. You may also notice that some baking powders are not kosher, because baking powder is sometimes made with cream of tartar, a by-product of wine making. All beer used to be kosher, but this is no longer the case because fruity beers made with grape products have become more common. Bus stop (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Why are you quoting this? Debresser (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Debresser, but a grape product, such as wine, manufactured today, cannot have been used in an ancient pagan ritual. Do you believe in time travel? I am not arguing about halacha right now, I am arguing about the tense agreement of the sentence. It makes no sense in English. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

These are two separate questions, Slrubenstein. I don't think anyone necessarily is "arguing about halacha." The grammatical question is just one question. But I think the other question is expressing the sourced understanding of any restrictions placed on grape products and especially wine. Bus stop (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Debresser, I just thought it might be helpful to get onto the Talk page the relevant quote from the source, or at least the one source that we have so far. Bus stop (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I see. Thank you. As to the comment about tense usage. The text is completely correct: we forbid wine now, because of what used to be done with wine once. That is precisely the law of "stam yenam". Debresser (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The key term seems to be "derive from." Perhaps we should get that term into the text in the article. Bus stop (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I've made a change. I've attempted to incorporate the term "derives from" into the already existing statement. Bus stop (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've made a couple of minor changes to the Kashrut section and referenced the Conservative responsa about wine. I have a slipped disk and am in bed, so this limits my editing of Wikipedia, but I like the edits that you people have made to the section. --

) 17:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions as well. Debresser (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The earliest know instance of the term used to mean "the profession or practice of the Jewish religion; the religious system or polity of the Jews," is Robert Fabyan's The newe cronycles of Englande and of Fraunce a 1513. As an English translation of the Latin, the first instance in English is a 1611 translation of the Apocrypha, 2 Macc. ii. 21 "Those that behaved themselues manfully to their honour for Iudaisme."[4]

needs to be:

The earliest known instance of the term used to mean "the profession or practice of the Jewish religion; the religious system or polity of the Jews," is Robert Fabyan's The newe cronycles of Englande and of Fraunce a 1513. As an English translation of the Latin, the first instance in English is a 1611 translation of the Apocrypha, 2 Macc. ii. 21 "Those that behaved themselues manfully to their honour for Iudaisme."[4]

There may be other errors as well but an error like this in Paragraph 2 is not so good for such an important article.128.54.238.26 (talk) 06:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the typo. I've fixed it. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I find this troubling and hope others will comment: [9] Slrubenstein | Talk 22:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. I agree that it is troubling, and in fact so is the entire article

talk

) 01:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That is a good suggestion. The author of the article and a couple of othe editors are really fighting to keep it. This really concerns me. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you come back and join us on the talk page of that article. --

) 18:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a new AN/I thread watchers of this article may wish to see:[10] Slrubenstein | Talk 18:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. I've put in my 2¢. I am wondering, has this discussion gone off topic for this article's Talk page? --

talk

) 00:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me there is a problem with citing biblical verses in Wikipedia. The commonly available English translations are based on the division of the Hebrew Bible according to Christian theologians, and the only Jewish version of Westminster Leningrad Codex is in Hebrew, and therefore useless to the English reader of Wikipedia. The article on Torah reading does not make this known, but the Jewish division of the Bible is different to Christian version, and this can lead to confusion when used to substantiate a specific point in any given article requiring specifically Jewish Rabbinic interpretation. It seems the only Jewish translation available online is the JPS 1917 version which is available as a Wikisource [11] but for reasons unknown is not used. What is that reason?--Meieimatai? 03:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing the JPS translation. Perhaps you could put the link to the JPS translation in the main spaces of this article, the "Torah reading" article, and similar pages. I suspect that the prevalence of Christian translations in Jewish related articles is due to the Christian versions being easier to find, and most editors may latch onto any translation that makes the relevant point. I think many editors are not aware of what's on Wikisource. Have you found specific problems with translated text that has been used in Wikipedia? --

talk

) 03:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Where should the link to JPS go in the man space of this article?

It seems to me that using a Christian, usually post-Renaissance translation of a translation (from Septuagint or Vulgate) makes little sense in Jewish articles requiring such citing since it is always preferable to go to the MS contemporary to the culture. It seems that this is the reason JPS was initially printed due to the lack of reliable English translation using Jewish sources of interpretation. Of course that was not perfect either.

I have not found specific issues where this would matter in Wikipedia articles, and know of them only through academic readings, but then again, I had not looked for them either.--Meieimatai? 12:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The link belongs at the end of the article, in the relevant links section if it isn't there already. You could also look for other articles I think would benefit from it--many articles about the Jewish religion are far less complete than this one. Does the translation on Wikisource have any materials besides the text itself? Also, I'm not convinced that Jews always use Jewish translations when they study the Tanakh in English, since they themselves may not share your POV that there is some inherent problem with using Christian translations. For example, I have read Christian translations as materials for a course about Judaism sponsored and run by an Orthodox Jewish organization. Thus, the Christian translations may also contemporary to Jewish culture. In the absence of drastically different interpretations of specific passages, they are more "standard" even for Jews than original translations, which are also acceptable to cite on Wikipedia. --

talk

) 02:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You miss the point. The issue is not only translation differences, but how the text is divided into chapters. Its different in the Hebrew text Torah to the Christian translations derived from Greek and Latin sources.

Wikisource has only the text.--Meieimatai? 05:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance--I knew the order and selection of the books was different in parts of the Christian Old Testaments vs. Jewish Tanakh, but I didn't know this. So in other words, a reference to the same chapter and verse of a given book in the Christian vs. Jewish Bibles may not be a reference the same passage? That would be a real problem on WP. --

talk

) 05:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but don't be so hard on yourself. Even most Jews don't know this since few religious Jews read Christian Bibles, and few Christians get a chance to study the Torah scrolls which is where the passage order breaks down due to the codified location of certain passages on certain pages by Torah scribes. This requirement had never existed in Septuagint, and was not passed on to later Christian MS texts. I will try to locate a source for this, and the relevant passages so affected.--Meieimatai? 13:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Please let us know as soon as you can--and I'd like to see the source and the list of passages which are affected. --

talk

) 19:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

See discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_October_26#Category:Jewish_inventors. Badagnani (talk) 06:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is only B-class, despite its importance. Perhaps we should make a concerted effort to improve it. Any suggestions about sections that need to be fleshed out, or editors/WikiProjects to contact? --

) 21:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

See Good article criteria for guidelines about how to bring the article to the next level.

The obvious WikiProject to turn to for help is WikiProject Judaism. It's been my experience that it's usually only one or two editors who do most of the "heavy lifting", although other editors will help with minor things. Considering the large number of editors who watch this article (more than 700), posting a to-do list here might be the most effective way of soliciting help.

To the extent my schedule permits, I'd be happy to help—although I don't think I can take a leadership role. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Talking about "improving the article", Bus stop is again trying to "improve" the article with minor changes in wording, that actually make the article less accurate and diminish the article's style. Please be on the watch. Debresser (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Debresser, in my opinion criticism is best when it is specific. What edit or edits of mine do you specifically object to, and why? Bus stop (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: I've been working on the first 2 paragraphs of the introduction, so far. Do you think these paragraphs need more references? Also, which non-Abrahamic religions did Judaism influence? This fact needs to be added.

Other items I'm placing on the to-do list, for now:

• Integrate Karaite Judaism within the main section about Jewish denominations.
• Change "Rabbinic literature" from list form.
• Flesh out the sections about Shabbat and family purity.
• Expand "Christianity and Judaism" section
• Any other ideas/suggestions?

--

) 01:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If I may add my reaction.

• The article is already not short. Expanding sectons that have their own article is the opposite of what should be done in such a case. This article should contain only the basics about each subject (like the lead of an article). This is in my view especially true for subjects that are less related to Judiasm itself, like the section proposed for expansion above. Debresser (talk) 09:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding User:Bus stop. I have posted a warning template on his talkpage for

1. edit warring
2. removing sourced information
3. changing perfect sentences

First he had a problem with the chickens, now with the pigs. :) Where will this stop? :) Debresser (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Debresser, perfect sentences are unlikely. Anyone who writes should know that.

The subject is food. It should come as no surprise to you that the identities of animals (sources of food) should come up. Please try to keep your interaction with me

civil. There has hardly been an "edit war," unless you count my two attempts to reword a sentence over a period of 36 hours. (The wording of my two attempts was different, hopefully better the second time.) It was you who reverted me each time, and now you are threatening me with block. Should you be using administrative tools to get your personal way? Perhaps. And perhaps not. You have resorted to attempts at ridicule, which is a poor substitute for constructive communication. This edit summary, for example. Do you seriously consider this edit to be vandalism, as you refer to it here

? There may not be any such thing as a perfect sentence but at least my sentence leaves out what I see as the extraneous material that your preferred sentence includes. But you do not seem inclined to discuss the writing of the article.

Sourced information is not sacrosanct. There is obviously better and less appropriate sourced information. I wished to include information differentiating the Biblical injunction against eating mammalian meat with milk and the Rabbinically enacted injunction against eating chicken (an avian form of life) with milk. I simply find it interesting material. The Torah does not even consider the flesh of fowl in the same category as the flesh of such creatures as cows, sheep and goats. In colloquial terminology, according to the source I brought, chicken is not considered meat. By the way, I have no point of view to push whatsoever. (Not that you said I did.) I want to put interesting information into the article. I want the article to be quick, fast, easy-to-read, interesting, and fun.

Rather than try to write the article in a collaborative way, with me, you seem more inclined to get your way, with no reasons given, and with no interaction with me. I wrote a short, snappy sentence, containing only the essentials:

"The pig is not considered kosher; it has split hooves but it does not chew its cud."

You replaced it with the following:

"The pig is arguably the most well-known example of a non-kosher animal--although it has split hooves, it does not chew its cud."

The one thing that is for certain is that my sentence above hardly qualifies as "vandalism." Bus stop (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I also find this, above, to be little more than unconstructive carping:

"Talking about "improving the article", Bus stop is again trying to "improve" the article with minor changes in wording, that actually make the article less accurate and diminish the article's style. Please be on the watch. Debresser (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)"

• I have no "administrative tools", so insinuating that I might use them to get my way is... peculiar. I am not an administrator. I could only complain about you, and if an admin would agree with my assessment of your edits, he could choose to block you.
• I consider your edit "edit warring", yes. You revert to your sentence. The more so because you do so without good cause. By the same token I am edit warring, since I reverted you. The question is whether we keep on warring?
• Sourced information is not untouchable, that is correct, but the editor removing it is likely to loose the argument. Same for taking a perfect (I insist) sentence and replacing it without good cause. That is not appreciated by editors. Even if you hadn't replaced it with the inferior (IMHO) sentence you made.
• The sentence I made is more informative in two ways: 1. It mentions the fact that the pig is the most well-known example of a non-kosher animal. 2. It alludes in a by the way manner to the fact that the pig is the only animal to have split hooves while not chewing its cud (as mentioned in the Torah itself). Jewish oral tradition tells the story that the pig shows off its hooves, pretending to be kosher. It treacherousness is considered by this tradition to be the reason it is the non-kosher animal par excellence. Debresser (talk) 06:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not

civility

: "Talking about "improving the article", Bus stop is again trying to "improve" the article with minor changes in wording, that actually make the article less accurate and diminish the article's style. Please be on the watch." In the foregoing you are not speaking to me but about me.

Now you are giving the reasoning that you should have been giving for your preferred wording all along. The small story from Jewish oral tradition is interesting in this context. But you hadn't mentioned it before now. And I still question its inclusion in this place in the article. Is that point being made a "hint" to something else the reader may eventually discover?

If the argument goes that we are sticking to details in this article, as it is the most general overview of the subjects covered in it, then why the exception to highlight the pig as the one non-kosher animal "par excellence," especially as the small story from Jewish oral tradition is not even included? I admit this discussion of animals sounds funny, but it would be my contention that the simple statement that the pig (among all other non-kosher animals) is not kosher and that it has "split hooves but it does not chew its cud" already represents a singling out of that animal. It is already being given special mention. It is unnecessary, in my opinion, to add such stuff as "...arguably the most well-known example of..." Rabbits and camels and horses are not being afforded similar representation. Bus stop (talk) 06:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

A well know fact. Note that I use the words "the article" and not "my article". Debresser (talk) 06:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine, but I have not suggested to you that you "Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing." The foregoing is uncalled for. Bus stop (talk) 12:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

To AFriedman. The third paragraph of the lede now starts off with "Who is Jewish" , continues with Jewish courts, and end with population estimates. If find this difficult to read. Especially between the first and the second sentence the reader is left with the question whether any connection must be presumed between these facts (while the answer is clearly "no"). Debresser (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Debresser, I've answered this at the bottom of the page.

Bus stop, I agree that other editors have been too hard on you, especially since you've been editing in good faith. No one edits perfectly. However, I think you should keep in mind the concept of WP:Consensus. We'd all be happier for it. This is an overview article and, although there's room for some specifics, I'm going to side with Debresser that too many details make it unmanageable. I'm still not sure if the poultry and pig issues were resolved as far as you were concerned, but if you're really interested in the poultry issue beyond more than a sentence or two, an overview or even a discussion of it belongs in more specialized articles.

Malik, thanks for the tips and I've been trying to take them into account. --

talk

) 04:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This Had Been Taking Place On My Talk Page But I Think It Would More Appropriately Dwell Here Bus stop (talk) 03:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Please refer to Shulkhan Arukh, Yoreh Deah 87:3 for the halakha on fowl. I have corrected your error. -- Avi (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I find the following here:

Before we discuss the subject of "eggs" it would first be imperative to understand first why chicken and dairy products are prohibited.

The Talmud says that when the Torah says "do not boil a kid in it's mother's milk," it is only referring to meat from the 3 kosher domesticated animals - cow, goat and sheep.

However, since people "intuitively" associate chicken as "meat," then it became the law as well not to mix chicken and milk. This view was accepted by the entire Jewish people as binding law about 1500 years ago.

The rabbinic prohibition of not eating poultry with dairy products is one of the many "fences around the Torah" that the Sages instituted. As the name "fence" suggests, the prohibition helps protect the Torah from being transgressed accidentally, and help people protect themselves from spiritual damage.

Furthermore, the 6-hour waiting period that applies between eating meat and milk products, likewise applies when one eats chicken.

I think the above source, while perhaps not the most authoritative of sources, is making a distinction between such animals as cows, goats, and sheep on the one hand and fowl such as chicken on the other hand. That distinction concerns the status as "meat" concerning these various animals. 20:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Bus stop (talk)

I brought you THE most authoritative source on Kashrut, Bus stop. Do you know anything about halakha and how it has been transmitted for the past 3000 years? -- Avi (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be specific, no one anymore will argue on the

Shach agree. -- Avi (talk

) 20:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I do thank you for the sources you brought my attention to. But perhaps we should include material from the source that I suggested above also. It represents a vantage point slightly at variance with the sources you brought. I am not suggesting that undue weight be given to this source. But nor is my source absolutely without applicability to the question we are addressing. Bus stop (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

To be precise, the source you brought does not argue with what I brought. The error in your original edit was not clarifying that practically, the treatment of fowl and flesh is identical. It is only the level of prohibition (Biblical or Rabbinic, so either ~3000 or ~2000 years old). Also, the source you bring holds of th e6 hour wait period, which is not universal (6, into the sixth, five and a half, three, and in the Dutch community one, are all still extant. Four is brought in Renaissance-era responsa but I know of no community that adheres to that now). Bringing the Shulkhan Arukh side-steps those issues too. What is it that you want added from your source? -- Avi (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you are providing adequate sources for the statement you wish to make. You say in the article, "Chicken and other kosher birds are considered the same as meat under the laws of Kashrut, but the prohibition is Rabbinic, not Biblical." And you provide as sources, the Shulchan Aruch and Yoreh De'ah. But these are Wikipedia articles, and neither of those two articles mentions anything about what you are saying in that statement. Bus stop (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The source is the Shulchan Oruch in volume Yore Deah. The internal links are just so that people should know what those are. It is like linking to a publisher inside a ciatation template: not that the information is in the article about the publisher. So this whole argument is void and had better be concluded. Debresser (talk) 04:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems that User:Bus stop does not know what the Shulkhan Aruch is, which raises the question why is s/he editing about halakha? Anyone with a modicum of knowledge about Halakha, Jewish tradition, or Jewish history would know that in this case, the reference to Yoreh Deah (with appropriate reference to major glosses and responsa if necessary) is the most authoritative source. -- Avi (talk) 05:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Why should Bus stop's level of Halakhic knowledge be important? Bus stop seems to mean well and want to learn. This page is so well watched that if we make a mistake in our good faith edits, we're quickly corrected. By the way, I think many Jews who are not Orthodox might disagree that Yoreh Deah is the most authoritative source on meat and milk. To give some extreme examples, this group considers a certain passage near the beginning of our Parshat

talk

) 05:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss other denominations interpretations of Jewish dietary law, then by all means. But when discussing Rabbinic Judaism, as that paragraph was, the authoritative text is the Shulkhan Arukh. -- Avi (talk) 05:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, which is why when I re-wrote the section about Kashrut, I specifically said that the prohibition against meat + milk was part of Rabbinic Judaism. I might be wrong, but I think the issues with the meat + milk paragraph over here have been fixed. --

talk

) 05:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, Reform Judaism doesn't hold any Kashrut laws, and Conservative Jews who do hold of it, follow the Rabbinic prohibition against birds and milk as well. Regardless, as the article stands now I think we're just fine. -- Avi (talk) 06:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I don't think we necessarily must conclusively answer whether the "Shulkhan Arukh, Yoreh Deah 87:3" is the final word or not on what some editors think is the primary question under consideration here. But if that is going to be our source, at least provisionally, perhaps it would not be a bad idea if we included an excerpted relevant passage from that source in the citation at the bottom of the page.

I felt that there was value in stating the interesting and I think correct fact that Judaism does not consider fowl to be meat — at least not in the category of the meat of certain four-legged mammals, and at least not in Judaism's first iteration of the laws of kashrus. As far as I know, there is a distinction made between cows, sheep, and goats on the one hand (if you have a hand that big), and chickens on the other.

The reasoning behind why they are both considered the same, as far as dairy/meat separation is concerned, and as far as kosher slaughter requirements are concerned, may be perfectly sound reasoning. That reasoning can be worked into this article, the Kashrus article, or simply left to remain in footnotes. I understand the points that have been made — that one prohibition is Biblical in origin, the other prohibition is Rabbinic in origin, and that one originates 3000 years ago and the other originates 2000 years ago. That is all good information and I'm not disputing it or objecting to its inclusion in Wikipedia articles.

But I don't think any of the foregoing alters the fact that chicken is originally distinguished from meat in Judaism. I made the following edit: "Chicken (or other fowl) are not considered meat under the Jewish dietary guidelines. Nevertheless chicken is treated as though it were meat for the purpose of separating dairy and meat." I think the foregoing is a true statement. I am not averse to rewording it. But what bothers me is that what I regard as the most important part of that statement is left out. This is the present iteration of that statement: "Chicken and other kosher birds are considered the same as meat under the laws of Kashrut, but the prohibition is Rabbinic, not Biblical." I think the origin of the dietary laws as pertains to red meat specifically and the flesh of kosher birds would be of interest to the reader.

I think that an interesting way to say this is to first state that fowl is distinguished from red meat in the Biblical stating of the dietary laws. That, I would contend, is an interesting point. It is only after that is stated that further information should explain that Rabbinic law came along 1,000 years later (2,000 years ago) which in effect equated the flesh of birds (kosher birds) with the flesh of cows, sheep, and pigs goats. Bus stop (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The section about Kashrut in this article doesn't need us to delve into every aspect of it, just to go over the basics. I agree that a discussion of Yoreh Deah and other relevant passages, and the origin of the taboo against eating chicken+milk (or meat+milk in general) belongs in Wikipedia. However, such a fine point of Halakha probably belongs in a more specialized article. The article about Kashrut is an obvious suggestion, and even the article about Rabbinic Judaism is only Start-class and might benefit from a few specific examples of how Rabbinic law evolved. I suggest you make the changes to these other articles at this point, and not this one.

If we're really interested in going into details about Kashrut and the chicken in particular, Karaite Jews are not even sure the chicken is a kosher bird.

talk

) 18:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Debresser, I was in the middle of condensing the 4 paragraphs of the Judaism introduction into 3 paragraphs (as well as citing the unsourced materials), and was going to get back to it. I think you're right about the 3rd paragraph being confusing, and also about the "Hakham" issue. Re: Hakhams, I'd been thinking about the Karaites, who use this term for their spiritual leaders. About Rabbis: even within Orthodox Judaism, my understanding is that individual people often decide which rabbi to follow on each issue, especially if they belong to one of the more liberal movements, and Orthodox thought includes a wide range of not-always-agreeing opinions. So in effect, many Orthodox have quite a bit of latitude in deciding the issues for themselves, and this does not even take into account Conservative and Reform. I'm about to try and fix the the third paragraph and please let me know what you think. --

) 02:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought you had the Karaim in mind when you used the word "hakham". The

Gruzinim

also use that word for their rabbis, BTW.

If Orthodox make their own decissions, then both words (rabbi and scholar) are not applicable. :)

I usually agree with your edits. Just that you make lots of them. :) Wouldn't it be easier to write something on Word first, or use a personal sandbox to copy a few sections into and work with them? Debresser (talk) 06:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

A couple things:

• It's a subtle point, but I think the sentence about "rabbis and scholars" should remain as-is. First, Rabbis usually have more authority than other people and they're such an important topic that perhaps they warrant special mention and a link to the page about them in the introduction. Second, Judaism traditionally values scholarship and so "scholars" also warrant mention in my opinion. I'm not only talking about Hakhams--knowledgeable lay people can have a substantial influence on their family and community even when Rabbis are the leaders. For example, it's often the husband of an Orthodox Jewish family that is the scholar and religious authority within the family.
• I did not know that the Gruzinim also call their Rabbis Hakham. I'm curious, is the position closer to its Karaite counterpart or its Sephardic/Ashkenazi Orthodox counterpart, or defined differently altogether? In Karaite Judaism, my understanding is that the Hakham may play an organizational role in the synagogue, but is a spiritual advisor rather than a legal authority. The Hakham's interpretations carry no more legal weight than other people's. (As an aside, this is one of the things that fascinates me so much about Karaism—that despite its origins in medieval Western Asia, its emphasis on limiting the power of religious government and upholding the universal right to interpret the Tanakh on an equal footing reminds me of the Jeffersonian strain of American legal thought.)
• Re: my edits. If following page history is confusing for you, I'll try not to hit the save page button too much at one sitting. However, I'm often editing while taking a study break, so I might be working for an hour or having a meal, making a couple edits, working for some time again, making a couple edits, etc. When I do this, I think my edits can be followed by just looking at the sum total of all my diffs. How much of a problem is it for you? --
  talk
  ) 16:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

In my experience the term hakham is reserved among the Gruzinim for venerated authorities both halakhically as well as otherwise.

I have no serious problem with your style of editing. Usually I look at the resulting edits as one, but sometimes that is hard. Such as in today's edits, where your and User:Bus stop's edits were interspersed. Debresser (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm curious how you are familiar with the Gruzinim, but that is beside the point. I know almost nothing about their culture. --

) 17:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I lived a while in a neighbourhood with a strong Gruzini community.

About your last reference to the kashrut paragraph. I don't think your reference about the military is appropriate for the general proposition. Debresser (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I was having trouble finding a good link about pikuach nefesh that specifically addressed kashrut. Actually, the best one I found came from suite101, a site that Wikipedia has banned as an external link because of spam and verifiability issues. Do you know of a specific reference that would be better than the one I used? --

) 18:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No, but I could look around. I work a lot with references and the Wikipedia blacklist makes trouble for me. I seriously think it is an absolutely unnecessary and even detrimental part of Wikipedia. After trying to get sites whitelisted a few times, utterly unsuccessfull, I have started working around them. Debresser (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I found an good source: ד"ר יחזקאל ליכטנשטיין. "ד ף ש ב ו ע י מספר 805" (in Hebrew). אוניברסיטת בר-אילן, הפקולטה למדעי היהדות, לשכת רב הקמפוס. הותרו ללא ספק איסורים מסוימים משום פיקוח נפש, כמו אכילת מזון לא כשר, which translates as Y. Lichtenshtein M.A. "Weekly Pamphlet #805". Bar-Ilan University, Faculty of Jewish Studies, Rabbinical office. ...certain prohibitions become allowed without a doubt because of lifethreatening circumstances, like for example eating non-kosher food {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help). Debresser (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the ref. I've just added it. --

) 19:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I saw that before you posted this note. :) But why not use the whole reference? it is a cite web. Debresser (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "use the whole reference? It is a cite web?" --

) 20:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You gave only the url and the quote. Here on this page, if you view it in edit mode, is a whole {{Cite web}} template. Debresser (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done I've put the citation in the article as a "cite web" template. --

) 21:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

AFriedman, you made this edit, and I have reverted it. I don't understand why you made the edit. I also don't understand the edit summary that you provided for it. Your edit summary says the edit that I had previously made was not appropriately placed. I believe it was appropriately placed. It was placed right after the area in the article discussing reasons for the laws of kashrus. It is of course a reason for one of the laws of kashrus.

You say in your edit summary that the source that I provided is incorrect. Can you please explain that?

This is the source that I provided, and the following is the relevant material from that source:

"The Torah prohibits consumption of blood. Lev. 7:26-27; Lev. 17:10-14. This is the only dietary law that has a reason specified in Torah: we do not eat blood because the life of the animal (literally, the soul of the animal) is contained in the blood. This applies only to the blood of birds and mammals, not to fish blood. Thus, it is necessary to remove all blood from the flesh of kosher animals."

Is there a reason you doubt the veracity of the web site I'm deriving that information from, or is there some other reason you feel our article should not rely on the above material? If you have material which contradicts this material, could you bring it to my attention? Bus stop (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I also didn't understand that edit by AFriedman. BTW, Bus stop, your last edit changing the order of the sentence about the reasons for kashrut laws was a good catch. Debresser (talk) 15:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You see, I'm not a bad egg. : ) Bus stop (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You just got lucky. Admit it. :)) Debresser (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Judaism 101 is accurate about the Torah's rationale for not eating blood. What isn't accurate is the idea that blood is the *only* dietary restriction with a rationale given in the Torah. To give you an example:

• The sciatic nerve prohibition: Jacob wrestles with an angel in the Book of Bereshith (Genesis). "He [the angel] touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him...And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed..Therefore the children of Israel eat not of the sinew which shrank, which is upon the hollow of the thigh, unto this day: because he [the angel] touched the hollow of Jacob's thigh in the sinew that shrank." Bereshith 32:25-32.

From this passage, I don't agree with Judaism 101 that blood is the *only* dietary prohibition whose explanation is in the Torah. This seems like an explanation of the sciatic nerve prohibition to me. How many dietary passages have explanations and how many don't does not seem to me like an essential part of the dietary restrictions section, so I've changed the section to be more accurate. --

) 02:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

AFriedman, that is

verifiable source. Bus stop (talk

) 03:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I've found a verifiable source which agrees that the sciatic nerve passage is also an explanation--"the Torah explains that Jacob's sciatic nerve...was 'wrenched'...and thus that the children of Israel are forbidden from eating the sciatic nerve" from [14]. My source is also the Torah passage I cited above, and with this additional resource it is not OR to say that Judaism 101 is wrong about blood being the only dietary prohibition which is explained.

A couple more comments about your edits:

1. Kosher wine in Conservative Judaism: Your new wording implies that Rabbi Dorff's ruling is universal for Conservative Judaism, whereas mine allows that it is not. I'm pretty sure some Conservative Jews side with the Orthodox and avoid non-kosher wine, despite the ruling I'd cited. The previous wording also includes a more general statement about Conservative Judaism that explains where Rabbi Dorff is coming from.
2. Please do not spell "Kashrut" ending in "s." People who don't know that the 2 spellings mean the same thing might be confused, and since this is an article about all of Judaism it's preferable to use the normative rather than a specifically Ashkenazic spelling.
3. I've deleted the separate blood paragraph because it is now redundant. The main "rationale for Kashrut" passage currently has all the correct information that was there.

--

) 04:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)