Talk:Syrian Jews/Archive 1

This page 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.

Rabbis Indicted

Edmund Nahum, 56, principal rabbi at Deal Synagogue in Deal. Authorities said he laundered $185,000 between June 2007 and December 2008. He was released from custody on $700,000 bail.

Eli Ben Haim, 58, principal rabbi of Congregation Ohel Yaacob in Deal. Authorities said he laundered $1.5 million between June 2007 and February 2009. He was released from custody on $1.5 million bail.

Saul Kassin, 87, chief rabbi of Congregation Sharee Zion in Brooklyn. Authorities said he laundered more than $200,000 with the government's cooperating witness between June 2007 and December 2008. Kassin was released from federal custody on $200,000 bail.

N.J. corruption arrests strike core of Deal's Syrian Jewish community

Article has potential

This article has potential

I'll say! I hope someone has enough knowledge to fill in all these headings, because I certainly don't! (By the way, I don't think "Spanish Inquisition" should be a separate heading. It never operated in Syria, and the first we knew of it was the arrival of the expelled Jews.) --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 08:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it right to mention the community of Beirut in the first paragraph? Or should there be a separate category for "Lebanese Jews"? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 09:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, 128.231.88.4. Interesting observations on the New York and Israeli communities, if a little POV. But wouldn't it be more to the point to set out basic facts about when they arrived, what areas they settled in and what synagogues they have founded? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 08:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The portion on the Syrian Jews in New York focuses too much on the negative aspects of the community . There are no links here to David Betesh's articles for example; and there is a lot of room for a history that hasn't really been fleshed out. See here: http://www.jewishgen.org/SefardSIG/AleppoJews.htm. This page is actually referenced in the external links section, I'm gonna start writing up a draft summary of it soon.--Bilditup1 16:43, 4 September 2006

Consistency

Also, would there be objections to change the date style from Jesus-based BC/AD to neutral BCE/CE, as commonly used in articles about Jewish history & religion. A relevant guideline is in WP:MOSDATE#Eras. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Quite a lot of the article is about present-day Syrian Jewish communities. There would be a case for splitting it into two, and having one article about "History of the Jews in Syria" and one about present-day "Syrian Jews". (I proposed the same thing on the talk page of "History of the Jews in Iraq"). Also, quite a lot of the history is covered by the existing "History of the Jews in Turkey", as Syria was part of the Ottoman Empire for so many centuries.

I have no objection to changing the dates. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 09:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC) [Now done: Sir M na G}

Article now split: see History of the Jews in Syria. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 12:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Where is the information regarding Israeli Syrian Jews sourced from regarding the older generation and the recent wave? Where is "Merkaz 'Olami le-Moreshet Yahadut Aram Tsoba (World Center for the Heritage of Aleppo Jewry)" sourced from, I would be really interested in finding more about it? Details anyone?

The Merkaz is in rav Aronson street near Kerem ha-Temanim, and I found out about it from the Zenner book (see Bibliography). They don't seem to have a website. I don't know who contributed the bit about Israeli Halabim of different generations, but that too looks like Zenner. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 10:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Synagogues in New York

Dear 66.230.200.125

I don't understand your reference to the "older generation of immigrants" as attending Shaare Zion: do you mean older immigrants as opposed to newer immigrants? or older immigrants as opposed to American-born? To put it another way: where do newer immigrants go? and where do young American-born Syrians go?

As I understood it, Shaare Zion is the flagship synagogue of the whole community, while the others are either smaller old ones (like Magen David) or cater for a specific ethnic group (like Ahi Ezer). Am I mistaken in this? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 16:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Surnames

I think that the surname section in its current format looks ridiculous. Maybe we should put it all in paragraph form. Does anyone agree?David Betesh

The original article contained only the most common surnames, like Betesh, Gindi and Esses. But since everyone has been adding their two-penn'orth, it has begun to look like the Brooklyn telephone directory.

If we retain it, I don't think we should have a bullet point for each name. On the other hand, to have one continuous paragraph would be equally forbidding. Perhaps one paragraph for each letter of the alphabet? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 10:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to put the family names of jews in the community. It is an invasion of their privacy and does not help anyone except maybe somebody interesting in committing a hate crime. kindly remove this section promptly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.111.88 (talk) 16:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirmylesnagopaleentheda (talk • contribs)

Removed this list of names, it's kinda weird anyway, and people have complained about it being an invasion of privacy and possible hate-crime target on OTRS (VRTS ticket # 2008020510015911). Open to discussion of course, but it seems like it started small and got out of hand, maybe better not to have a list at all. - cohesion 05:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The names of the Aleppo and Damascus families was a comprehensive list. It was not unreasonable in length and it had recently completely stabilized. It obviously does no harm to anyone. Authoritative (talk) 10:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't revert this until a consensus is reached, people do complain about this list. These are surnames, and in as much as they are identifiable as people this is against Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Lists_of_people as these people are not notable for the fact that they are Jewish. It seems also that there is general consensus to keep the list removed for style reasons. - cohesion 00:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I do not agree with having a list of names. As long as it is up, it should be correct: Shalme or Chalme is from the name Shammah. They should be together. It is on the wrong line. Chalme and Shalam are not even from the same tribe. Any Chalme can testify to this. Shasho is from Anteb and has nothing to do with the other names on the same line. Shasho is from the tribe Levi and the others are not. Shasho should be on it's own line. Shasho families came with 2 spellings: Shasho and Saso. Saba; Sabbagh are completely different names from Scaba; Escava and they are not from the same tribes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leffrey (talk • contribs) 21:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Movies/Visuals/Photos of the Jewish Community of Syria

Does anyone have any links/movies/photos of Syrian Synagogues such as the Great Synagogue of Aleppo or at least of the Jewish community of Syria?

There must be photos or visuals of these Synagogues and the community life of the Jews of Syria?

How can it be that a community of tens of thousands doesnt even have a photo gallery of their community in Syria while the Lebanon, Lybian, Egyptian, Morrocan communities have one?

Last question, did anyone save the images from the "Silenced Sacred Spaces: Selected Photographs of Syrian Synagogues by Robert Lyons" exhibit since they have all been removed?

Thanks a billion guys

Yes I too noticed that the Syrian synagogues/monuments site isn't working. I think they are revamping the whole site, and that we just have to wait.

-: Before the page was totally removed, there was a notice stating that "We are sorry to inform you that this photo archive is no longer available online at ISJM.org. For further information please contact Robert Lyons via his site." - Click for cached page of ISJM.ORG So I doubt if/whenever they do bring the page back up that there will be any update. :( so our only hope for these is if someone backed them up before they removed it.

As for community photos, I think there is a deeper problem. There doesn't seem to be a dedicated "Syrian" site, equivalent to "harissa" for the Tunisians and "dafeena" for the Moroccans (and I think there's one for the Iraqis). --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 09:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I dont understand how its even possible that they dont have one. Even the smaller communities have one. How can there not be any high quality photos of the Great Synagogue of Aleppo?

Hopefully they are working on one, though I have no clue.

Well, you were right, the site is back on the internet but sadly it repeats this message,

"We are sorry to inform you that this photo archive is no longer available online at ISJM.org. For further information please contact Robert Lyons via his site."

Anyone have any high quality images of the Jewish communities of Syria?

History

A long passage has been added at the end of "History".

It badly needs wikifying
It should probably become a separate section "Jews in Syria in recent times" or similar
It looks as if it is lifted straight from the cited source Mitchell Bard "The Jews of Syria", in which case there is a copyright issue. Can someone clarify? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 10:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation of bet raphe

I lifted a long paragraph added by User:Tshilo12 and transferred it to Mizrahi Hebrew. However, I also have some queries about its content, and have put them on the Mizrahi Hebrew talk page. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Attitudes to conversion section

Frew8989, a couple of things:

1) First off and least importantly, in regards to the spelling of 'recognized' vs. 'recognised' the Wikipedia Manual of Style in its National varieties of English section states that "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation" (which in this case I think we can all agree are the primarily American English speaking Syrian Jews) then the article should be written in that dialogue (see WP:ENGVAR). In summation, spell it 'recognized.'

2) While I agree that 'The points are hotly debated, and we must preserve neutrality' I don't think it neutral to begin the section stating 'The communities would not carry out conversions to Judaism, or (normally) accept as members converts from other communities, or the children of mixed marriages or marriages involving converts.' This already is an interpretation on the general attitude toward conversions in the original version of the takana/edict/ban etc. Rather the most basic incontestable starting point should be stated as 'The communities would not carry out conversions to Judaism FOR THE SAKE OF MARRIAGE.' My reasoning is not that I seek to whitewash the communal attitude, but rather that the original document in the original Hebrew makes reference not to all converts but only to converts for the sake of marriage, hence this is how the section should begin, and only later should the possibility of it being expanded to all converts be raised/added.

3) You changed my 'they have recognized conversions carried out by rabbis in Israel' to 'they have recognized conversions carried out by the Rabbis in Israel' [sic]. The word 'rabbis' is not to be capitalized unless it's being used as a title (e.g. 'Rabbi Greenberg,' but not 'I love rabbis'). And unless you are referring to some specific organization of rabbis in Israel, I don't see what 'the Rabbis in Israel' [sic] even means, so how bout we stick with my, 'rabbis in Israel.'

4) This paragraph

In some instances, however, they have recognized conversions carried out by the Rabbis in Israel. This law heavily discouraged people from converting because in order to convert they would have to travel to Israel and back, showing great commitment toward Judaism. It should be noted that Rabbi Jacob Kassin has been known to make conversions in very specific situations.

is wrong for several reason. To begin with, the last sentence is just out of place in the end; a bit of a non-sequitur. Also, Rabbi Jacob Kassin is dead, thats why I changed it from 'has been known' to 'had been known.' Second and more importantly, the paragraph implies that the reason that the law/takana discourages converts is that they would have to do something that shows great commitment to Judaism. That is incorrect as normal converts to Judaism must show great commitment to Judaism. Rather, the law/takana discourages converts because it requires 'greater commitment toward Judaism, above and beyond that which is required by normative rabbinical law.' (as per my version).

Frew8989 or anyone else, please feel free to debate any of the aforementioned points, or else I will implement the above mentioned changes. Thank you.

Ezzi386 (talk) 06:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I carried out the revert, but only had in mind point 2 (and the general interests of brevity): I wasn't meaning to dispute all the other changes you made, which in some cases I didn't even notice. For example, I totally agree on "rabbis" ("the Rabbis" with a capital R refers only to semukhim of the Mishnaic/Talmudic period).

As I understood the edict, the community would not carry out conversions at all. It is where the recognition of conversions by other authorities is concerned that the divergence comes in, with some saying it is only conversions for marriage and others saying it is conversions in general (the comma point). Am I quite wrong about this? And if the edict had been quite clear that it was only conversions for the sake of marriage, would the appeal to Hakham Uziel have been necessary? --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It is my understanding having seen the many versions and updates of the edict firsthand in Hebrew that it only prohibits the accepting of converts for marriage, and only later did people begin resisting converts altogether. I think what this section of the article really needs is a link to some digital form of the text of the takana itself in both Hebrew and English. Until we get that we won't be able to resolve some of these disputes. Ezzi386 (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

By "accepting of converts", do you mean accepting candidates for conversion (i.e. that the community carries out the conversion itself) or accepting those already converted by other communities (as members)? It would be perfectly feasible to refuse to carry out conversions but to accept converts from other communities (and even direct prospective converts to the appropriate quarter): this is exactly the practice of the Spanish and Portuguese community in England. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 15:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

There has never been an official distinction between accepting candidates for conversion and accepting the already converted. Regardless, I think the point it that the language of the opening of the paragraph should be "The communities would not carry out conversions to Judaism for the sake of marriage, or accept as members converts for the sake of marriage from other communities, or the children of mixed marriages or marriages involving for the sake of marriage," or something to that end. Do you concur?Ezzi386 (talk) 03:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You should find, and show me, a link to the actual wording of the takkanah in its different editions; and I shall have to check Hakham Uziel's ruling. Failing that, we can always fudge it by saying something like "accepting converts, in particular where the conversion is suspected of being for the sake of marriage". --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 10:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.Ezzi386 (talk) 14:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay I adjusted language as per discussion, and integrated former last sentence into the paragraph.Ezzi386 (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, it seems that the original version of the takana was ambiguous on whether it was applying only to converts for marriage. As such, I think the current language in the section most accurately reflects the ambiguity with the later paragraph clarifying things.Ezzi386 (talk) 05:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the grammar of the second sentence. Additionally, I added a line about the exceptional nature of conversion for adoptions, which are permitted. Please discuss if anyone has any issues. 12.68.58.2 (talk) 16:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

List of Synagogues

This article has listed an impressive number of synagogues, particularly in New York. Problem is that many of these synagogues are not specifically Syrian. One obvious example is the "Sephardic Lebanese Congregation." Does somebody know which synagogues are actually "Syrian"? I would argue that the synagogues that are not directly related to the Syrian Jewish community should be deleted.ShamWow (talk) 02:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Modern country boundaries are not always decisive in ethnic classification. For much of its history Lebanon has been part of Syria, and the Lebanese Jewish community may be regarded as a branch of the Syrian Jewish community: their traditions are not much more different from those of Damascus than, say, the Damascus traditions are from those of Aleppo. Where the list refers to "Egyptian" Jews, this means Jews of Syrian origin who settled in Egypt in the 1900s, not Egyptian Jews generally, who include a wider spectrum.

Today Brooklyn has a strong and cohesive Sephardic community, overwhelmingly Syrian in origin, but with some smaller groups (e.g. Turkish) who keep their traditions but fit into the wider "SY" communal structure. That is why all these synagogues are included in the list. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 08:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Bid-Rig

Would it be appropriate to mention the recent prosecutions of many of the prominent figures mentioned in this article for money-laundering and illegal solicitations for organ donations in the FBIs ongoing big-rig investigation?Njsamizdat (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

paring down

This article is padded with trivia that would never be included in any self-respecting encyclopedic source. Wikipedia is not a synagogue directory or a card catalog for every siddur ever published by the Syrian community. If it is to keep a reader's attention, it must focus on the important stuff - and there is plenty that is fascinating - and keep long lists to a minimum. --Gilabrand (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Photo of Jews in Syria

This picture of Jewish pupils should be added to the article [1] it was taken in 1991 in Damascus. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Added, but it seems a bit unclear who actually owns the photo, see credits on the Flickr page. FunkMonk (talk) 18:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

1992 emigration

That section does not mention that in an undercover operation in 1994, 1,262 Syrian Jews were brought to Israel, despite Syrian restrictions. [2]