Talk:Dialectics in Judaism

Message to Leifern: Avoid creating double articles
Here is what I wrote to Leifern at User talk:Leifern. Hi Leifern: I saw your note (at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism) about your intentions for Dialectics in Judaism. However, it seems you are overlooking some fine articles that already exist:
 * 1) Schisms among the Jews which covers many areas you outline;
 * 2) Relationships between Jewish religious movements which deals with modern issues as well as
 * 3) Jewish views of religious pluralism;
 * 4) Who is a Jew? contains more information about opposing views;
 * 5) Jewish denominations outlines the origins of many "Dialectics";
 * 6) Jewish ethnic divisions involves your subject;

These are some of the main articles, there may be more, I wanted to bring to your attention BEFORE you create double work for yourself or other editors. Best wishes. IZAK 06:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree the present article will simply duplicate the articles IZAK has flagged up above. "Dialectics" also suggests progress or development as a result - this appears POV to me. JFW | T@lk  07:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey guys - thanks for the heads-up. The article that is most duplicative of the one I've proposed is Schisms among the Jews. Perhaps we should think about combining these two. I am personally partial to the notion of dialectics, because I think: a) not all of the disputes/disagreements resulted in schisms. Hillel and Shammai were apparently quite friendly, and there was at no point any risk that Judaism would be split in two; b) the synthesis that results from a dialectic is not necessarily one of progress, but I think it is safe to say that the disputes contributed to greater definition of today's Judaism. I can't imagine that there's a rabbi out there - in any movement - who wouldn't agree that these disagreements were important.  --Leifern 12:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * While Hillel & Shammai disagreed on issues and treated each other with the greatest respect, the Talmud indicates that it was still a negative thing. JFW | T@lk  16:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Still, pretty mild compared to excommunicating each other, which future disputes led to. --Leifern 23:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

These are not candidates for "dialicts" or a synthesis of any sort! Sure, Shammai and Hillel, and all "disputes for the sake of Heaven" (meaning they do not seek to uproot normative Judaism), can be part of a "dialectic" perhaps, but to roll up your sleeves and start salivating at the prospect of "uniting" idol-worshippers with Monotheists, or deniers of the Torah with fervent believers of the Torah and its commandments, or followers of Jesus and Islam with those who rather gave their lives than submit to such views, would be crackpot original research not worthy of any encyclopedia. IZAK 06:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Leifern, you also making a basic error of logic because according to classical Judaism, there are ACCEPTABLE vs. UNACCEPTABLE Jewish theological disputes (which you desire to phrase in "dialectical" language). Kosher disputes are called machloket lesheim shamayim ("dispute[s] for the sake of Heaven") and non-kosher disputes are called [machloket] ..she'einah leshem shamayim ("dispute[s] not for the sake of Heaven"). Quoted from the universally accepted Mishnah's Pirkei Avoth ("Ethics of the Fathers") Chapter 5: mishnah 20: "Any dispute that is for the sake of Heaven will have a constructive outcome; but one that that is not for the sake of Heaven will not have a constructive outcome. What sort of dispute was for the sake of Heaven? - The dispute between Hillel and Shammai. And which was not for the sake of Heaven? - The dispute of Korach and his entire company" (English translation from the ArtScroll Siddur, pp. 576-7) (see Pirkei Avoth for a variety of texts and commentaries on this). Thus from the foregoing we see that Hillel and Shammai "were in the same ball park", they did not dispute the basic premises of the Torah, UNLIKE the following who ALL created vast SCHISMS and fought against Judaism and would definitely be categorized as NOT being for the sake of Heaven, and are in fact far worse, belonging to the UN-dialecticals: "Korach and his entire company":
 * 1) The northern Kingdom of Israel split-off led by Jeroboam to worship idols;
 * 2) The Sadducees who denied the Oral Law;
 * 3) The Samaritans who built another religion at Mount Gerizim;
 * 4) The Christians who deified Jesus;
 * 5) The Karaites who dropped the Talmud;
 * 6) The Sabbatians and Frankists who apostacized to Islam and Christianity;
 * 7) Reform or secular atheist Jews who reject the Divinity of the Torah and the 613 mitzvot.


 * Izak, we Wikipedia contributors do not get to decide what is, or what is not, a candidate for dialectical religious debate. It is a historical fact that such dialectics do exist.  That is precisely why we have Reform Judaism, Karaism, Samaritans, etc.  In fact you yourself have already written in detail on this very topic; you merely avoided using the word "dialectic", and used another synonym for the subject.  And I like what you wrote!  I think that the controversy is that you see Leifern's terminology as promoting the view that religious Jews are obligated to view all these different systems as the same, but I don't think that he is really making that claim.  Like you, I reject religious relativism.

IZAK, I don't think we're in much of a disagreement in our points of view, and I think your points are helpful in articulating the issue. So, here goes:


 * I think we can agree that lumping Hillel and Shammai in with, say, Sabbatei Zevi, and calling them all "schisms" is misleading. While they both involved disputes, what was argued about, the manner in which the argument took place, and how it ended, are vastly different.
 * From the POV of Samaritans, Karaites, and Christians, which outcome was for the sake of heaven has a different interpretation. In other words, categorically labeling some disputes as "kosher" or not is inherently POV. (And I should point out that Chasidim were excommunicated at one point).
 * Whether or not the term "dialectic" is too tendentious is something we should discuss (schism is no better, imho), but my point is that these were disputes that led to important changes. In some cases, groups disassociated themselves from each other; in others, one side prevailed; in others yet, there was clarification.
 * I think it is possible to write an article that is both encyclopedic and draws the distinction you are trying to make, but it is going to be challenging, but also a great learning experience.--Leifern 14:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Let us be careful not to confuse the discussion of dialectics with the idea of accepting halakha as normative. These ideas have nothing to do with each other.  In fact, the concepts are orthogonal.  Of course one can talk about dialectics between halakhic and non-halakhic Jewish worldviews.  In fact, people can and do talk about dialectics between Judaism and other religons, such as Islam and Christianity.  One can even discuss in a dialectical fashion the relationship between theism (including Judaism, Islam and Christianity) and atheism.
 * Izak, you yourself have written a lot about the dialectical debates in Judaism. You simply didn't use the word "dialectics". You seem to be under the impression that the use of that word means accepting that all parties are equally correct.  I agree with yuo that our articles should not push such a view. RK
 * Izak, you yourself have written a lot about the dialectical debates in Judaism. You simply didn't use the word "dialectics". You seem to be under the impression that the use of that word means accepting that all parties are equally correct.  I agree with yuo that our articles should not push such a view. RK

IZAK's responses to Leifern and RK
Hi, since Leifern's and RK's comments are somewhat bundled together above, I will try to respond collectively to them here IZAK 13:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC):
 * 1) "Karaism, Samaritans" these two are so small and marginal today they are basically only of academic interest. Let's not blow them out of proportion in the final analysis of this subject (as they say "the proof of the pudding is in the eating"...i.e. in the judgment of history, those movements failed and are DOA in many ways...like disecting a corpse really.)
 * 2) Note: It is important to differentiate between ongoing and never-ending "dialectical religious debate" and what is more settled in the world (or as settled as one can hope for, given a world of flux). Otherwise one runs the danger of presenting "mush", rather than explaining what the "original ingredients" are. If I may use the analagy from chemistry, the chemicals in the periodic table of the chemical elements remain STABLE and as a FIXITY, it would be fatal and dumb to confuse combinations and consequences (both positive and negative ones) of chemical mixtures, with the importance of understanding that the chemical elements made up of secure atoms must remain in one piece, at least in the mind of the objective scholar and writer... for we all know the consequnces of "splitting" atoms... "nuclear explosion" with "deathly radiation'... so let's keep perspective here...the "debate" is not the "substance" (i.e. "the true subject") itself. Or as they say: "Keep your eye on the ball" (of reality and facts). (Pardon my mixed metaphors... bad habit).
 * 3) Reform is still powerful (but waning as it struggles to hold onto members rapidly marrying out of the faith i.e its members are becoming de facto Christians as they marry into the vast Christain world)...controversial but nevertheless true. Reform is different to "Karaism and the Samaritans" because the latter two held tightly to the written law of the Tanakh at least (and still failed as religious movements...i.e. they basically do not exist in any meaningful way), but they rejected the rabbis and the Talmud -- whereas Reform rejects both the Tanakh's divinely-inspired origins and rejects the authority of the Talmud and its classical rabbis (because Reform is more the captive of the anti-religious secular Haskalah in general). So we are dealing with "chalk and cheese" and different categories of rebels and rejectionists against rabbinic Judaism. (How am I doing with facts?... That's all that counts in the end.)
 * Yes, I do think that there is a danger that Leifern's approach may lead to the creation of false notions about how Judaism develops and influences as well as interacts with the world outside of itself, not just for "religious Jews" -- you can forget about them here, they are not going to get their primary information from Wikipedia and its subsidiaries snaking out over the Web, and besides, many rabbis have banned the use of the Internet other than for "business" -- but rather, it's the serious question of how will the world at large, the members of humanity at large, come to conceive of a Judaism "reaching out" and influencing the world and the counter-influences Judaism has always contended with? That is why this type of article must be handled with supreme caution.
 * 1) To state that the "Samaritans, Karaites, and Christians, which outcome was for the sake of heaven" is simply FALSE, historically and theologically. And they did NOT have ".. a different interpretation"... they in fact wanted to shut down the old system entirely by creating a compeletly new self-concocted one (each for their own reasons). Which source of Judaism says that "Samaritans, Karaites, and Christians, which outcome was for the sake of heaven has a different interpretation" besides Reform-like scholars who will grasp at any straws to "justify" their own very different type of break from Judaism???
 * Yes, "Samaritans, Karaites, and Christians" represented religious movements, that may, from a long distance of time, seem like they are something akin to an "orthodox" type of religion (for lack of better wording) in keeping with their ages, but they were never ragarded as falling under the category of "for the sake of heaven" by any notable rabbis or Jewish scholars during their times, on the contrary, the rabbis in their time fought them tooth and nail, and that is why there was a total schism with them which was conducted via a very confrontational sort of approach with them, that we would feel very uncomfortable with today. So guard your words.
 * 1) Yes Chasidim were put into Cherem, but they never abandoned the Talmud or the ways of the ancient rabbis, on the contrary, the Chasidim proved that they aspired to the Talmud's values and its Laws even more, something that cannot be said about the Karaites, Samaritrans or Christians who point-blank dumped the Talmud, and with it, the entire corpus of established Jewish law that comes from it. These are historical facts, nothing "POV" about it at all.


 * IZAK, I think you'll appreciate that - regardless of our individual opinions on these matters - we can not write an encyclopedic entry that labels any kind of religious conviction as "wrong." I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it seems to me that you want to avoid any kind of confusion about what constitutes normative Judaism. In other words, you want to make it clear that what happens within Judaism is different from what happens between Judaism and other religious systems. I think we agree that this topic has to be handled with great delicacy.  You're warning RK not to twist this into something that follows the CJ party line, and I'm sure he'd be inclined to send you a similar warning. Without a doubt, there will be disagreements, but hey, that's what this is all about :-) --Leifern 13:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * When did I say we have to write that "any kind of religious conviction as 'wrong' "? I don't think you grasp the flow of my thoughts correctly. If you do not understand me, please ask, I will be glad to explain myself again. What I do object to is to write things that are false as in "is a statement true or false?" (because, as in logic, many arguments cannot be either all or both "true" and "false" etc. at the same time. Classical Judaism is not a religion that adheres to Relativism -- which is a phenomenon of modern times and is not in keeping with Judaism's notions of being an "eternal faith" -- a complex topic indeed, very different to what most people think religions are nowadays.) Since you admit that you may be "putting words in my mouth", I will confirm your view that, indeed, you are putting words into my mouth, saying things that I never said. In fact I do not follow your logic at one point, which doesn't seem to flow: You say that I "want to avoid any kind of confusion about what constitutes normative Judaism" and then you add that I also "...want to make it clear that what happens within Judaism is different from what happens between Judaism and other religious systems". And my reaction is, where do you see this from my responses above? Finally, I am not "warning" RK or anyone else, but in the past, RK has stated that he adheres to a Conservative (Judaism) outlook, and I was commenting upon that based on my long-term interactions with him (over three years!). Whenever he starts to yell that "Wikipedia is not an Orthodox encyclopedia" my standard retort to him is that "Wikipedia is not a Conservative encyclopedia" either. And as I mentioned below, I say it somewhat "tongue in cheek". Be well. IZAK 11:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think a lot of this has to do with the qualifier one either explicitly or implicitly puts in front of a sentence. "According to classical Judaism" may be one that is important to you. I doubt that any religion would cop to being a relativistic religion. There is always the conviction that a core is permanent and immutable, precisely because there is some concept of revelation. Just what the propositional content of that core causes wars, schisms, etc. --Leifern 12:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * So from this last comment is one to gather that you view the "core" of Judaism, as say, no different to any other religions or even anti-"religions" like Satanism or Voodoo? IZAK 12:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposal
I agree with Izak and JFW that we should merge this article with the already extant article on Schisms within Judaism. I also agree that we should avoid giving the impression that the article promotes religious relativism; it should simply describe the various debates in a neutral manner, as Izak has already expertly done, and as Leifern is currently doing. The resulting article may need to be renamed. In doing this merge we should prepare a careful analysis of the context for the dispute, what its core elements were, how it was resolved, and what the lasting implications were. (Sorry Leifern, I stole the ideas right out of your mouth! :) ) RK 21:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * What RK is saying now does sound reasonable to me, on condition that the Conservative Judaism POV does not become the new "gold standard" of articles about Judaism. IZAK 13:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * We have no disagreement. Are you concerned that such an article would push a Conservative Jewish view of halakha or theology?  As far as I know, it wouldn't push any form of theology or halakha.  As I see it, the article would do no more than what you have already done: discuss the dynamics of debates that have led to the schism in Judaism . RK 20:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * RK: I'm not worried, there is lot's of room on Wikipedia for everyone's sensible research and contributions, even if the "real world" ain't always so. I fully agree: It's totally fine to "discuss the dynamics of debates that have led to the schism in Judaism", no problem, my earlier comments were made "tongue in cheek". IZAK 10:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion
I created this article originally and have now considered it's redundant to other articles. Although the emphasis is a bit different in this one, I would rather that we try to make Schisms in Judaism cover this topic. --Leifern 21:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)