Talk:Judaism/Archive 11

Naturei karta orthodox jews
I propose to add a link concerning orthodox jews
 * This article contains almost no discussion of Zionism. Surely a link to a page about the tiny minority of Orthodox Jews who oppose Zionism would not be the way to introduce the topic. It is very hard to believe that this suggestion was made in good faith. - Jmabel | Talk 22:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

ADD Me being a vehement anti zionist --Shaul avrom 00:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

NK are about as fringe as you can get, and do not deserve mention on this page, b'ch'lal u'ch'lal -- Avi 01:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So, nu, we won't add NK. We can add Edah Hachareidis though, their mainstream enough. --Shaul avrom 23:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

NK is only "fringe" in the West and among Modern Orthodox on down (in terms of Religiosity.) In Haredi Judaism, the Aggudists dont like them but consider them G-d fearing as per Aaron Kotler and the Steipler Gaon's instructions; the other non-Zionists just count them peers or heroes. When I was in Uman on ROsh HaShanah, Moshe Braun, second to the top in America's Neturei Karta,was shliakh tzibor at the Rav Aaron Satmar synagogue. This was the day after they had met with Iran's President in NY. Not to be out done in over the top support, Rav Zalman-Leib's Satmar tent blasted the Neturei Karta anthem in a loop for four hours on Motzei Rosh Hashana. Certainly Iran's 26,000 Jews view NK as protectors since they are the only foreign Jews with the ability to reach them and provide aid in various ways when necessary. 88.154.162.106 08:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * An admittance to being in Uman on rosh Hashana is enough to make you an eid posul.

Protection
The page says that it was protected because of a dispute, but I don't see any substantive dispute meriting protection. If the issue is just vandalism, I would think that semi-protection would be more appropriate. If it must be fully protected because of vandalism, shouldn't it use rather than a template that falsely suggests a substantive dispute? - Jmabel | Talk 22:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * you are not a Jew, you do not know what us Jews go through in our everyday lives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.42.211.4 (talk) 01:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Edits I would hope we can make consensually
So... it's protected. But can we please get consensual agreement to remove an outright falsehood:
 * "The Talmud was a compilation of both the Mishna & the Gemmorah (Aramaic for the word Tradition)." Surely this means to say "Gemara". (Similarly elsewhere.)

Less drastically, but I hope we could still get consensus to edit:
 * "that these oral laws were rectored by Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi": I have no idea why "rectored" here. I presume it means to say "recorded".
 * "scholars Ravina & Rav Ashi" certainly should link. Probably should be reworded to include links to both Ravina I and Ravina II
 * The same passage also contains a misspelling, "compleated".

Also, does anyone understand why "They soon developed oral traditions of their own which differed from the rabbinic traditions, and eventually formed the Karaite sect," was removed? - Jmabel | Talk 22:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I see we are down to semi-protected; I will edit. - Jmabel | Talk 05:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations
Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b. Members of the WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 22:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

In Favor of Equality and the NPOV
Please stop removing the links to Messianic Judaism websites at the bottom of the article, whether the movement is contraversial or not, Messianic Judaism is still Hebrew-centric, Torah-based religion with a majority of ethnically Jewish practitioners, thus making it UNDEBATABLY Jewish under an objective viewpoint.

Or also remove the alternative Humanistic "Judaism" movement as listed at the bottom, a movement that is indistinguishable from culture-centric secular humanism and has nothing to actually do with Torah-based spirituality! Or keep both the Messianic and Humanistic Judaism links at the bottom, just to be fair.

Thank you.


 * It's not about fairness (or unfairness) to you personally. There are plenty of reliable sources that demonstrate "Messianic Judiasm" is rejected as a legitimate form of Judaism across the board by all mainline Jewish denominations, regardless of your personal beliefs that one can straddle both Christian and Jewish religions and be considered legitimate to both. -- M P er el ( talk 23:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I couldn't disagree more. What do I think should at least be kept in the margins of the Judaism article? A spiritual practice that is Hebrew-centric, Torah-based, and has a majority of ethnically Jewish adherants. Wait, what was that again? It's called Judaism.


 * The part about worshipping another Jew as a deity seems to be one of the main exclusionary factors that the major Jewish denominations have with including it. ; )  -- M P er el ( talk 00:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Messianic Jews do not "worship" Jesus, ever. Yeshua himself insisted that we pray only to the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (my editing is crummy sometimes), the one true G-d. Messianic Jewish study is partly involved in meditating and practicing the Torah (usually, in Hebrew), and discussing its meaning and application (mainly from the Talmud), as well as the role of Yeshua (Torah incarnate and Messiah) within the state of affairs. Everything you've heard about Messianic Jews being Christians with a Hebrew fethish is entirely false. Most Messianic Jews will have nothing to do with the evangelical Christian group Jews for Jesus, just so you know.


 * That's just your own POV, and it doesn't entitle to run rough-shod over other peoples' valid submissions Hoserjoe


 * Hopefully he prayed to the G-d of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (who is Eliza?). Meanwhile, what you or I think doesn't matter for the purpose of this article, just what reliable sources say. Mainstream Judaism sources across the board reject the movement. -- M P er el ( talk 01:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I realize that the other Jewish movements do not respect Messianic Judaism, but because it is still Hebrew Torah-observant faith with a majority of ethnically Jewish practitioners and hundreds of congregations & synagogues, for the time being it should be listed as a POSSIBLE movement in Judaism. Or remove the Samaritanism and Humanistic references as well. Perhaps you should read the following, from a synagogue in my area: http://www.bethsar.com/believersstilljewish.htm

Also, look at the horrendous re-edit Humus Sapiens has done of Alternative Judaism, he places pagan "Judaism" and other tiny movements over Messianic, clearly showing that he despises Messianic Judaism and does not have a NPOV. And noone seems to care, and it is tragic. Please help to reverse his edits.


 * Your synagogue's link about whether a Jew who follows other religions is still a Jew has no bearing on this article; are you trying to make the argument that any religion any Jew follows should have to be called "Judaism"? Meanwhile, I appreciate that you fixed your above edit, but the fact that a messianic Jew can't even keep straight the name of the G-d Jews worship sort of makes the very case in point made by mainstream Judaism sources that messianic Jews mostly just play dressup, attempting to make Christianity look like Judaism while adherents really have no clue what Judaism is.  Whether or not you're offended by which movements are or aren't included within the realm of Judaism, you and I don't define the religion. -- M P er el ( talk 02:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * MPerel & Jmabel, I'm curious how you are presenting yourself(selves) as the gate-keeper(s) of this conversation. Are you the final arbiter of Jewishness?  Is there a board of admission that vets all submissions?  There's a problem with this topic and it's that some intellectual pretenders are trying to gain control of the content under the guise of one Jew being more knowledgeable than the others and it's giving Judaism an aggressively ignorant, and uncomfortable, POV patina.  That may be the norm in the synagogue, but not on Wikipedia. 07:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The articles are simply for your use, not this discussion. It's not about Jews converting to other religions (that's what Jews for Jesus is), it's about Messianic Judaism. Also, most Messianic Jews keep Kosher, practice holidays such as Chanakkah, Rosh Hanasha, and Yom Kippur, and seek to build their knowledge of Torah and the rest of the Scriptures. Reform and Reconsturctionist Jews (more than 1/2 of Judaism) generally can't event attest to that much. What Judaism is: Torah-based spirituality. If you truly continue to hold your position, perhaps you should gloss over me and ask the 19th-generation rabbi.
 * Just to offer a logical sanity check here: You can't take Protestant Christianity, add some new holidays and slap a tallit on it and call it kosher. "Messianic Judaism" is a very diverse group but in general rejects several of the major tenets of Judaism. This is a matter of beliefs, not of practice. "Messianic Jews" can, indeed, be very observant of Jewish things, but the fact of the matter is that doesn't matter. If you pray to a deity other than God, or believe in the divinity of an entity other than God, being Jewish is just not possible. Kari Hazzard  ( T  |  C ) 13:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Would you please sign your posts? (Use ~ .) Normally I use unsigned to add pseudo sigs, but I'm not going to follow around someone who posts half a dozen times without signing. - Jmabel | Talk 06:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I use Wikipedia on a dynamic IP, making it very hard for me to sign ;)
 * If you'd take an account it would be no problem at all, and if all we get is a dynamic IP, that's fine. But if you have some principled reason not to, could you at least use (five tildes) which will give a time stamp and no name? - Jmabel | Talk 05:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a simple point that is being ignored- no one is claiming that Jews who practice christianity are no longer Jews. Rather, the objection to including Jews for J in this article is because this article is not about Jews! It is about the religion called Judaism; and the one dividing point between Christianity and Judaism over the last two thousand years has been is jesus the Messiah. In fact, the early practitioners of christianity were pretty much exactly like the modern day jews for J!

Why Kari Hazzard is Wrong
"If you pray to a deity other than God, or believe in the divinity of an entity other than God, being Jewish is just not possible."

- Messianic Jews pray only to G-d, as Scripture and the oral traditions (Talmud, Mishnah, etc.) demand.

- I hope you understand that the ancient Hebrews were Henotheists (believed that other deities besides G-d could possibly exist). In the Messianic Tradition of Judaism, the heretical notion that Yeshua (The Messiah) is G-d made flesh is rejected. He is the physical embodiment of the Torah and G-d's vigil/word to humankind.

- Are angels divine? According to our Bibles, they are equal parts heat and moisture, fiercly masculine, speak Hebrew, and can teleport. And they are divine, yet physical. Then that is a being other than G-d that is divine. Judaism does not require the belief that G-d is necessarily the only divinity that exists, but that He is the only divinity worth bowing before. "You shall have no other G-ds before me". The Messiah is at the right hand of G-d, something of an embodiment of everything He represents, yet still something infinitely less.

The following, in my belief, is required reading for anyone to make an educated decision about Messianic Judaism:

http://yashanet.com/library/law_1.htm

http://www.rabbiyeshua.com/articles/index.html

Zorkfan 23:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't use WP to promote fringe views (or in this case, beyond fringe). The split between Judaism and believers in Messiahship of Jesus has occurred about 18 centuries ago, and those centuries were unforgettable. It is time for Christian-Jewish reconciliation, not a deception that two faiths are somehow compatible. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Humus: "Please don't use WP to promote fringe views (or in this case, beyond fringe)."


 * I would say that a movement with well over 100,000 members is well beyond fringe. I will support what I know is closest to the truth.


 * Humus: "The split between Judaism and believers in Messiahship of Jesus has occurred about 18 centuries ago, and those centuries were unforgettable."


 * Indeed: http://yashanet.com/library/fathers.htm Rome corrupts. You, however, are acting like antisemetism has anything whatsoever to do with Messianic Judaism. Not in a million years, friend: Messianic Judaism is Judaism, and I doubt that any sane person hates their very own race and culture.


 * Humus: "It is time for Christian-Jewish reconciliation, not a deception that two faiths are somehow compatible."


 * It doesn't matter whether the two faiths are compatible or not. Christianity grew out of Judaism, and so did many other smaller faiths. It doesn't matter that they may not be compatible, only that one descended from the other.  This is an encyclopedia, not a virginity contest. 20:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Christianity is a hollow faith, IMO. Judaism has remained relatively pristine, and your definition that any belief that the Nazarene may be Messiah is default Christianity is unhealthy. It was relatively popular for the Hebrews to re-experiment with Baalite worship when they though they could get away with it, but that didn't mean that G-d didn't have other plans. When you possibly see Yeshua return to complete the remaining world peace and wisdom portions of the Messianic prophecies of the Tenakh, perhaps you may understand.


 * You're just getting wrapped up in your own POV, which is irrelevant. You might think that "Judaism has remained relatively pristine", but the next man might think that Judaism is mouldy and decrepit. Both are mere opinions and have no place in an encyclopedic reference 20:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Once again, the fact that you dislike Messianic Judaism doesn't make you correct. Zorkfan 00:17, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly! The purists like Humus sapiens and user 24.2.55.36 are contaminating this discussion and presenting Judaism  as an aggressive and immature community of prigs.  There is room in this discussion for offshoots and derivatives.  If the content is sufficient, they can be supported by their own pages with WP links.  But there's no problem discussing a topic as well as it's derivatives (except for the prigs and twits defending the purity of the Judaism topic).  Who, except the censorious prigs here, cares if the topic is crossed with information about real and existing derivative faiths?  This is not a synagogue of Philistines - it's an encyclopedia Hoserjoe 20:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Stop using WP as a soapbox. This is not a place or time to start a theological discussion and address the intricacies of beliefs of ancient Israelies. On your main points, reliable sources prove you wrong. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not using Wikipedia as a soapbox, but as a way to help bring people closer to the factual, objective truth. I don't necessarily need your blessing to do it. Since you probably haven't even scratched the surface of the required reading, I don't feel your opinions are fully educated. How much opposition to Messianic Judaism within other Judaism do you think is an affronted reaction to those 18 centuris of horrible persecution? Probably, a very considerable amount. I don't view things that way, but try to measure them as they are laid before me. As an intelligent human being, you should know from experience that majority is not a very reliable measure of plausibility. Though it seems to be a crime to even disagree with the majority, as I have experienced here. Zorkfan 01:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Zorkfan. Dude. These are the qualities that I find in your arguments. Self rightous, unquestioned, unrelenting, fervent belief in your possession of Ultimate Truth. Unwilling to acknowledge the merits of others points; or even to listen to what others have to say. I must say, these are also the same qualities of arguments used by many Jehovah's Witnesses I've had discussions with. I feel that this manner of conversation becomes very boring after a short period of time. Perhaps there is a Messianic Judaism article you can work on? Out, Out foul Troll! 24.2.55.36 16:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think somebody should translate haredi?


 * Haredi basically roughly translates to "one who trembles at the name of G-d". However, that isn't really sufficient to explain what it actually is as a basic definition. Haredi Judaism is "ultra-Orthodox" Judiasm.

Mraleph 00:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Misc.
Hello this is a decent article, I did think the there was a huge gap in the begining of the article but I fixed it. There seems however that the article is too big. Any one else agree with me on this one. The Hinduism article is starting to take shape, but even it is still too big. -- Sea dog  .M.S  00:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Spelling Of G-d
Might it be wiser to not spell out God, but rather write G-d so as not to offend more orthodox Jews?
 * No. This is an encyclopedia, not an Orthodox text book. Besides G-d looks nothing like YHWH or YHVH in Hebrew. rossnixon 01:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * We shall use G-d, not god nor Y-H-W-H or Y-H-V-H. Have a Git Gebentched Yor --Ah Frimer Yid, and it should say G-d, or Hashem, or HKB"H Nu, so tell me something


 * This is ludicrous. First of all, no Orthodox Jew is "offended" by seeing God spelled out. The entire issue is that they're not supposed to dispose of God's name (in any language), and spelling it as G-d is a way of avoiding the problem. But this doesn't apply to computers at all; look at all the Orthodox blogs, and you'll see that they almost uniformly write God in full. marbeh raglaim 02:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I usually write G-d, but I am not offended by the full spelling. BTW, halachically speaking, CRT and LCD screens are not considered kesiva (they are optical illusions caused by excited phosphors or charged liquid crystals) so there is no issue of mechikas HaShaym to worry about. Rabosai, a bissle saychel here, please. -- Avi 03:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, time to play "offend the frummers" time. Yahweh. Yahweh. Yahweh. Yahweh. Yahweh. Yahweh. Yahweh. Yahweh. Yahweh. Yahweh. Yahweh. Yahweh. Yahweh. Yahweh. Yahweh. Yahweh. Yahweh. Yahweh. Yahweh. Yahweh. Yahweh. Yahweh. And a nice big Yahoo to you too. ;-) 204.52.215.107 06:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC) ok, how about "God"?
 * Asherah and Ba'al. &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 06:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC) (oops, I had forgotten to sign in before)
 * Okay, I'm done "offending the frummies". Everyone feel better now that someone else broke the Big Taboo? =) &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 06:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, don't forget the fact that someone can print the page and then discard the name of G-d. Most Orthodox, Conservative, and Messianic Jews write G-d (or preferably, haShem), just to be safe. Writing G-d is just another way to revere his name. Btw, anonymous, you can attempt to pronounce the name of G-d all you want, but it is in vain. The true pronunciation has been lost to history, and this is discounting the possiblility that it is impossible for a human being to correctly pronounce the name of G-d, thus bastardizing it. Yeshua = Messiah! Shalom. 12.64.84.97 01:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Since "God" is most definitely not his name, it seems to me that treating it as if it were his name dishonors his true name. And if you want to reason that it is "one" of his names because people use the word in place of/as his name, then you are caught in a trap, because people use "g-d" in place of/as his name.  "G-d" is as much God's name as "God" &mdash; or rather, as I see it, "God" is no more God's name than "G-d." Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, a wonderful compromise is not to say "G-d" at all, if such a thing can be done in modern society. Rather, say HaShem, which simply means "His Name". Anyone that knows Hebrew or practices Judaism will know who's name you are talking about. Shalom. 12.64.134.232 23:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. But Hachem is just the sam as God - a place-marker for God's name.  Put another way, "God" is no more God's name than Hashem. One word is in English, another in Hebrew. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Wrong, actually. When using HaShem, which means "His name", you are basically leaving a blank space where his name ought to be. Or, just go ahead and use Eloheime. That name was given to the Israelistes to refer to Him, and could be used anywhere except in unholy places (such as bathrooms). 12.64.222.77 01:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Let's face it, God in English is called "God". That's how the concept came over to English - not YHWH, Yahweh, Yahoo, Ba'al, Allah, Ahura Mazda, HaShem, Eloheime, Elohim, Elohaynu, or Eloi (or G-d for that matter) - God. Or Goddess, if one is of feminizing-the-divine bent. Most Anglophones will understand the concept of God as "God". 204.52.215.107 05:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Quite understandable, really. I hold your same opinion. In the future, all that can be asked is that you will refrain from attempting to pronounce the name that cannot correctly be pronounced, that He first revealed to Moses as most holy, the tetragrammaton. Btw, the Rauch HaKodesh (Holy Spirit) IS the feminine aspect of G-d as we see it. Yeshua is Messiach! Shalom. 12.64.216.185 23:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, for those insisting that "G-d" is a "trap" to think it is a name. Indeed, it is not specifically one of His names - that is, from translation from Hebrew, there that is not His name. However, G-d (note the capital 'G') is used to differenciate between Judaism and montheism and 'other' gods (note the lower case 'g'). In either case, why does one use a hyphen? It's called a level of respect. That is that one should not use G-d's name in vein and this is a means of avoiding just that. If others cannot appreciate or respect that - and it has nothing to do with being Orthodox or not - than they who have said issues do not need to mention G-d in their writings on these pages. Seems like a simple, fair compromise to me - unless, of course, said people can respect others. Mike Isenberg 17:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

'God' is the English word for the role and position of the creator and is the equivalent of the hebrew word 'elohim' used throughout the pentateuch and holy scripture. It identifies his supremacy and his position of authority and gives weight to his counsel. He is above all Kings and earthly rulers and human governments. Given that there have been, and still are, many different gods worshipped, the god of the Jews told them his personal name, which has been recorded in Hebrew scripture in the letter form of the tetragrammaton. The tetragrammaton is used thousands of times in Scripture. It is not a translation of elohim, but it is additional information, his personal name which uniquely identifies HIM as the god of the Jews and the god/creator of the universe/the earth/humankind etc.. So 'god' isn't a name, it is a title. "We should not take the name of xxxx in vain"-Exodus 20. "We should call upon the name of xxxx"-Psalm 105. "We should make his name known among the nations"-Exodus 9. In time "the gentiles/nations will have to know that he is xxxx" -Ezekiel. --87.114.151.202 (talk) 13:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Nadira
An editor called Hkelkar insists on adding the large template for Jews and Judaism to a small article on Nadira, a recently deceased actress who was once a star in Bollywood movies. She was born into a Baghdadi Jewish family, but she seems not to have been a practicing Jew and she was certainly not identified in any way with Judaism in her film career. The article identifies her as Jewish and links to the proper articles; there's absolutely no need for the template, which is about the same size as the article. I removed the template once and Hkelkar immediately restored it, on the grounds that she was a JEW, therefore the template must be displayed.

Hkelkar seems to identify himself as a Jew and he might be more receptive to counsel from other Jewish editors. Please ask him to desist from this silly provocation. Zora 06:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Just like Zora "seems to identify" herself as Buddhist. Zora violated WP:OWN on many articles and any cat of template dealing with religion/ethnicity is immediately deemed (by her) "a tool for perpetrating massacre".Bakaman Bakatalk 15:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

revert of edit to first sentence
I reverted a recent edit because it opens a can of worms unnecessarily in the first paragraph. The first paragraph should be as straightforwward as possible. The subject of the first sentence is "Judaism" and the sentence as stands is accurate - Judaism is the religion of the Jews, not of any other people. The subject of the sentence is Judaism, not jews. If one wants to say something about the Jews and their belief, fine, but that is more appropriate to the first paragraph of the article on Jews. Obvious the two are related and I have no objection to a section later in this article explaining that not all Jews adhere to Judaism. But then one needs to say more about the complex relationship between being Jewish and Judaism - and this belongs in a section in the body of the article, not up top. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Monotheistic faiths
There seems to be a dispute as to whether this should say "the first recorded monotheistic faith" or "one of the first…". I think the latter. I see that the person who changed this says that the monothestic worship of Aten was influenced by what he terms yiddishkeit. I'm unaware of any scholarship firmly establishing which came first. Certainly Freud, in Moses and Monotheism, made the case that Jewish monotheism derives from the worship of Aten. I know that there are scholars who think he was right, and scholars who think he was wrong, but I have no idea if the balance comes down clearly on one side or the other.

I suspect someone working on this would know a lot more than I do. Can anyone point to some good sources on this? - Jmabel | Talk 20:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't mean to be wishy washy, but could you phrase it as "one of the first, if not the first"? That would correctly convey that there are multiple points of view as to this question.


 * I have no problem with that formulation, but it is still little more than hot air without cited sources. - Jmabel | Talk 07:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Protection Removed?
Is there a reason protection was removed from this page? It's definitely a target, as evidenced by the rapid-fire vandalism yesterday evening. -- Tuvok  ^ Talk 09:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

"its central authority is not vested in any person or group"
So what is the chief rabbi and the rabbinate and the rabbinical courts? From what I have read, they are comparable to to the Catholic Pope, the college of cardinals and the ecclesiastical courts.

Chief Rabbinate of Israel "The Chief Rabbinate of Israel is the supreme Jewish religious governing body in the state of Israel. The Rabbinate is the halakhic authority for the state, and controls many aspects of life in the Jewish state. Issues under the jurisdiction of the Chief Rabbinate include Jewish marriages, Jewish divorce, Jewish burrials, Kashrut and kosher certification, olim, supervision of Jewish holy sites, working with various mikvot and yeshivot, and overseeing Israeli religious courts."

Sounds like a central authority to me.

I have also read that the Israeli rabbinate operates courts in russia.

I know that the pope is elected by the cardinals and the pope appoints the cardinals. But the corresponding info about the rabbinate & the chief rabbi seems to be a deep dark secret.

Is there some sort of taboo in judaism about mentioning this organisation? "the eleventh-largest organized religion" ? Anyway, I will delete the stuff in the title above unless someone explains how the rabbinate, etc, is not a central authority.

24.64.165.176 06:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Mentioning what organization? There is no taboo, Jews talk about the Chief Rabbi of their country whenever appropriate - if their country has one.  The Chief Rabbi is a political position created by the state.  It exists in some states (e.g. UK) but not in others (e.g. US).  When a Chief Rabbi exists, it is because certain functions often monopolized by the state (e.g. performing marriages) are delegated to religious authorities; the Chief Rabbi has administrative jurisdiction over these functions.  A chief rabbi may be a well-respected legal scholar, but by no means is he always a well-regarded legal scholar.  Moreover, he does not by virtue of his position have any particular legal authority among Jews.  Historically the most important Jewish halachik authorities in the 19th and 20th centuries have not been chief rabbis.  The Chief Rabbi is an administrative position created by the state, even non-Jewish states (like the UK or Russia) to serve as a liason between the Jewish community and the state.  If those states did not decide to create Chief Rabbis, chief rabbis would not exist.  Moreover, the Chief Rabbi is in no way at all like the pope because rabbis are in no way like priests.  Jews do have priests, but rabbis are not necessarily them (if a rabbi is a priest it is pure coincidence).  Rabbis are not intermediaries between Jews and god, and ribbis do not necessarily speak for God (indeed a famous Talmudic passage has the majority of rabbis debating against God).  In short, the article is correct, and if you revert this passage I will revert you without any further comment. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Israel's chief rabbi (it has two) is nothing like the pope. He's the puppet for a secular government. Nobody takes anything he says seriously. The same with the rabbinut. The Israeli government runs it, and by law there you have to see them if you want to be married, but nobody takes them seriously and they are a big joke amongst the religious. Nobody who tries to eat kosher eats the food they mark kosher. If you ask any faithful Jew who they respect more, the Ashkenai Chief Rabbi of Israel, or the Brisker Rav, President of the Eidah Charedis, they are all going to say the Brisker Rav. 88.154.162.106 08:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation
For anyone who is interested, there is a draft of a new article, Religious views on masturbation, at User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation. Please feel free to expand the draft, especially the section User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation! After it looks good on user space, it can be posted on to article space. CyberAnth 08:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)