User talk:Mentsch

Talkpage rights
[The following conversation took place when I was still not registered and using IP 68.198. I copy it here for the amazing thing it shows about wikipedia: that even a new editor being (what appears to be) bullied by an administrator who is also an arbcom, can appeal for justice to other administrators.]

user:Jayjg, please use utmost caution and be careful of abusing your position as an administrator. I don't believe it is your job to police my talkpage. If indeed it is wikipedia policy that your "official notice" must remain here, than, in the future, please be sure to quote the policy to avoid any misunderstanding. 68.198.236.57 04:17, 4 December
 * Actually, I,ve done the research for you, and I quote from wikipedia policy vandalism
 * "Talk page vandalism-
 * Deleting the comments of other users from Talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism. Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long Talk page to a separate file and then remove the text from the main Talk page. The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion."
 * Actually, Jayjg it seems that you engaged in vandalism (hopefully accidental) by removing this comment from my talkpage. Please take the time to know the rules well. It is important for administrators to set a good example, instead of inventing non-existent rules. Thanks.68.198.236.57 08:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The relevant part of the policy, which had existed there for months, was apparently unilaterally deleted on June 9. Your unwarranted accusations and uncivil claims of vandalism are little more that retaliation for your 3RR block; please think of more collegial ways of interacting in the future. Jayjg (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Amazing- you refer me to a rule that was edited out of the policy over six months ago. And not "unilaterally" as you would have it, but after months of discussion going back to April, 06. See the archived discussions there please. Also, it is clear that you cannot erase my own comments from my own talkpage without a good reason. Until now I have assumed good faith and I would like to continue to do so. Take this as friendly advice: please do not erase comments from my talkpage. Good luck     68.198.236.57 17:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your insight, I always just knew it as a rule, and didn't know it was removed (I am an admin on the Yiddish wikipedia, we have had arguments about this before). Thanks again.--Shmaltz 04:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, that 'users cannot remove warnings' stuff was first thought up late last year, was "unilaterally" inserted onto the policy page despite various objections and was then removed and re-added repeatedly until being taken out for good after extensive discussions and finally general agreement to can it on the admin noticeboard (well after the edit of mine cited above). Subsequently the related 'wr' templates which had been created to 'enforce' it were deleted by a strong consensus. The practice just caused too many problems and was never an actual accepted policy... just something some people stuck onto the policy page with no prior history or consensus and then kept restoring until it was officially squashed. In any case, less hostility... more being helpful. Always a good plan all around. --CBD 21:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Talmud & Hirsch
I dont think we need to hash this out on the talmud page. Now to the matter itself - I don't think that we will be able to prove what the "normal" orthodox view was. In fact, I don't know if there was any. There simply was a spectrum of views that ran from left to right (or from right to left) Hirsch is emblamatic of the Right wing on this issue. Not necc. all issues. I beleive that I have shown you the sources for what is claimed in the article. Namely, that there was a "left wing" orthodox approach to wissenschaft. And further that such an approach was present even in the first generations of the Haskalah. Orthodoxy is not definable by this issue. In the talmud article we talk about critical and historical methods of talmud study in the nineteenth century. I beleive it is perfectly acceptable to identify four groups when disussing the use of the critical method. 1) reform. I think we can agree on this one. 2) positive-historical (although I dont like this term too much, but i feel its more accurate than conservative- for our purposes here in this discussion tho - lets equate it to conservative.) It isnt so clear when to start or stop this one though - Where does S.J.L. Rapoport fit here? He was a supporter of Frankel - but I don't think he would have dogmatically left the realm of orthodoxy - even according to Hirsch. 3)Left wing orthodox - Who utilized new methods of history, linguistics, textual criticism etc. even while remaining traditionalists in dogma. and 4) right wing orthodox - who denied the validity of using modern methods of critical research. This then is all that we are trying to convey in the article. You seem to be upset that I call Hirsh a right winger - but remember in this context he certainly is. Hirsch is a good example of the right wing view - most especially since he was one of the most outspoken proponents of it. Am I wrong? Furthermore - do you still have objections to this section inthe article? let me know. Guedalia D&#39;Montenegro 03:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I responded on the talmud talkpage.Mentsch 04:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Chajes
I do not think we are arguing. At least not in principle. Chajes made use of modern nineteenth century methods of talmud study. Agreed? Chajes was not opposed on principal to the use of these methods. Agreed? This is all I am saying. If you are unhappy with the term critical methods - help me define it in the article. It does not (to my way of thinking) mean "conservative" or "positive-historical" or anything of the sort. We are simply looking for a term that describes the development of newer scientific methods of study as applied to the talmud.

As regards your specific points -
 * it actually presupposes the opposite- that Chajes was torn between diametrically opposing philosophies that are not compatible, that of orthodoxy and that of the maskilim. She sees his occasional contained use of the critical method as representative of dual-allegianced and conflicting tendencies.

To me this means, by definition, that he was also torn toward maskilic tendencies. That is all that is needed to differentiate between him and Hirsch. Is Chajes not an orthodox scholar who made use of the modern methods? Doesn't this mean that some orthodox rabbis made use of the critical method?


 * it doesn't seem correct to present Chajes, or I believe any orthodox scholar, as an unreserved proponent of the critical method.

S.J.L. Rapoport? David Hoffman? Krochmol? These are not orthodox? Besides perhaps you should go back anbd re-read the article. You may find that it is less objectionable than you think - to quote the article "Still, many of the nineteenth century's strongest critics of Reform, including strictly orthodox Rabbis, utilized this new scientific method. Notable among them were Nachman Krochmal and Zvi Hirsch Chajes." This is not calling chajes an 'unreserved proponent' of the critical method. What is your objection? I do not understand.


 * "A seperate point is that I believe the section should be split up into two, one being "textual emendations", another being "critical method". As it stands now, rashi is presented as using the critical method in his commentary. This implies and assumes that the method was founded either before rashi or by Rashi himself!''

I think I understand your concerns here - and what we need is not splitting up of the article but a better written segue into the issue. This shouldnt have anything to do with earlier methods of talmud study - of course there are earlier scholars who used methods which were we might call critical...but that is not germane to this section which is that in the nineteenth century new methods and sciences were applied to talmud study. Someone named Ar2Yeh jumped in the article with talk about Rashi. I moved it to a footnote - becasue I thought it was not important and only served to support the first sentance of the section. I am not even sure as to the truth of his statements - although I wouldnt be suprised if he did make textual emendations when he thought the text was in error. Who cares - so did all Hazal. Did external academic sciences play a role in such emendations, I highly doubt it. So I agree with you that this is a strange probably unneccesary section - but maybe we can just edit the footnote to be less pointed.

Looking forward to your comments. Also I apologize that I mentioned you by screename in the discussions section - but I was trying to simplify the debate for those who wont take the time to read through the last few days discussion - I would like to get more comments from people. I hope I did not mis-interpret your positions.Guedalia D&#39;Montenegro 06:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)