Talk:Judaism

Talk:Judaism Archive

I would like to note that orthodox Judaism is not a movement and is simply defined as the most conservative form of Judaism. As such it means the same thing as traditional, while traditional has the connotation that it no longer applies, and of course this is not so in the opinion of the orthodox. Ezra Wax

No, Orthodox Judaism does not mean traditional. It is simply one resonse to a number of historical phenomena, beginning with the Enlightenment. In fact, I know plenty of people who argue that Orthodox Judaism has strayed so far from traditional Judaism that it can no longer be considered Judaism. Furthermore, where on earth did you get the idea that "traditional has the connotation that it no longer applies"? Finally, we generally don't remove Talk pages. If you want, you can archive it, but please put it back. Danny

I have no problem archiving the talk page, but I am not sure how it is usually done. Ezra Wax

What is your argument that orthodox Judaism has strayed from traditional Judaism? Ezra Wax

Of course it has. Danny

That is not much of an argument. I do admit it has changed, but although many changes were and are controversial, it has generally been accepted in orthodox circles that the changes have followed the dictates of halacha. Ezra Wax

1. You are assuming that it is my argument. I never said that
2. You admit change, but argue that your changes are acceptable.
3. You justify this by making an unstated unilateral assertion that Orthodoxy are the sole purveyors of change.
4. This is an encyclopedia. It is not intended to argue your point of view (or mine, for that matter), but a neutral point of view. That view may not be acceptable to either of us, but it is more acceptable than presenting only one point of view.
5. Danny

I maintain that orthodoxy has the narrowest definitions of what sorts of changes are permissible, as far as halacha is concerned. I define Judaism as the beliefs that Jews have regarding what is required of them by God, as such, orthodox Judaism is the most conservative, and anything regarded as acceptable by orthodox Judaism would be acceptable to all Jews. Ezra Wax

Common Orthodox argument, but essentially flawed. Just because the definitions are narrowest doesn't make them correct. Perhaps change is necessary (there is precedent for that: Yohanan Ben Zakkai for one). Nor are all things acceptable to Orthodox Jews acceptable to all Jews. I know plenty of people who will not pray at services with a mechitza (a division between men and women). Kollel is especially problematic, since a very strong case can be made that it is actually a violation of "traditional" halachah (see Pirkei Avot, Maimonides, the Chatam Sofer on Sukkot, etc.). There are many other examples too. Danny

Not to go off on too much of a tangent, but a good deal of contemporary historical scholarship and social science (not on "Jews" but on everything) argues that the very idea of "tradition" or "traditional" is a modern construction. It is very common in modernity for a cultural movement to legitimize itself by claiming to be "traditional." In any event, Wax is clearly wrong: there are many differences between Ultra-Orthodox Jews today and Judaism as it was practiced in the 14th century, let alone in the 4th century, CE. Also, Wax is wrong that if somethin is acceptable to Orthodox Jews it is acceptable to all Jews. This isn't theory or ideology, these are two empirical claims that are simply wrong. Slrubenstein

I will modify my claims. The orthodox procedures for modifying accepted practice, are the most conservative, as such orthodox halacha can be best justified by traditional sources. Although movements such as Chassidus were considered radical in their time, and thus were not orthodox when introduced, they subsequently have become orthodox by the universal acceptance of all, but the most radical Chassidim. Ezra Wax

Okay, Ezra, this sounds reasonable -- but obviously non-Orthodox might see it differently. The task for us is not only to represent different view (Orthodox, non-Orthodox), but to present them in ways that clarify disagreements; I think what you just wrote is a successful example, Slrubenstein

RK: What did I write that was false? What was polemical about what I wrote? I object to the intermingling of orthodox and non-orthodox views in this article. I believe that the views should be cleanly separated. I also object to the description of Jewish beliefs relative to those of Christianity. Any comparison of the two sets of beliefs should be done as an aside rather as the main point of a paragraph. I also object to a description that relies on philosophical terms to describe Jewish beliefs. Ezra Wax

---

Ezra Wax recently made a curious addition. In an out of quote context from the Talmud, Ezra Wax tried to define a Jew as literally any human being who is not an idolator. This is most certainly not the traditional Jewish position, nor for that matter, is this belief accepted by Orthodox Jews. Both Orthodox Jews and non-Orthodox Talmud historians agree that this phrase was written as as non-legal rhetoric; it was an exegerration. It was never undertood literally; further, no Jewish denomination accepts this as an actual way of defining a Jew today. The rabbis of the Talmud had many good things to say about gentiles that were not idolators, and the highest compliment they had was that someone was virtually a Jew themselves. But taken out of context, as it was in the article, is extremely misleading.

Someone recently aded a load of material. Someone else removed it for the sole reason that it was added "too fast." I personally did not like the material, but just because there was too much is no reason to remove it. Danny

---

assimilation is a good word to use Vera Cruz

Here are just a few feferences to works by historians, demographers, and rabbis that describe the assimilation of the modern Jewish community, and who use the specific word "assimilation". This is the mainstream use and understanding of this word.

• The Encyclopedia Judaica, Keter Publishing (both print and CD-ROM versions)

• The 1990 National Jewish Population Study

• "Alternatives to Assimilation; The Response of Reform Judaism to American Culture", 1840-1930" Alan Silverstein 1994

• Robert S. Ellwood, "Judaism in the Later Sixties" 1994

• "The American Jewish Experience in the Twentieth Century: Antisemitism and Assimilation" by Jonathan D. Sarna and Jonathan Golden

article text is online (http://www.nhc.rtp.nc.us:8080/tserve/twenty/tkeyinfo/jewishexp.htm)

• "Assimilation and Authenticity: The Problem of the American Jewish Community Community and Polity: The Organizational Dynamics of American Jewry, Chapter 1" Daniel J. Elazar

article text is online (http://www.jcpa.org/dje/books/cp2-ch1.htm)

• An article in The Reconstructionist, quarterly Rabbinic journal.Assimilation and Digestion: An Anthropology of Kashrut in Postmodern Americ Eleni Zatz Litt

http://www.rrc.edu/journal/recon61_2/litt.htm

• The New York Review of Books November 23, 1989 What Future for American Jews? Arthur Hertzberg

• Jonathan D. Sarna, ed. The American Jewish Experience

• Jack Wertheimer, "Recent Trends in American Judaism" American Jewish Year Book 89 (1989)

• Jack Wertheimer A People Divided: Judaism in Contemporary America (1993)

• "Want Social Justice? Try Vouchers" Nathan J. Diament, on Jlaw.Com

• American Jewish Commitee Report "The Costs of Jewish Living: Revisiting Jewish Involvements and Barriers" Gerald B. Bubis
• Article text is online (http://www.ajc.org/InTheMedia/Publications.asp?did=427&pid=1003)

Danny, I maintain my own personal library of books and photocopied articles from various journals, more so than you would find in the homes of most Jewish laypeople. I also have done a lot of readin on these issues, so I am bit tense when it appears that everything I have read is being challenged. But I am trying to re-read your words in a different light. Now that I do so, I will agree with you that the term acculturation is a valid way to describe this issue as well. How about this compromise? From your survery of the literature, describe the range of meanings that this term usually refers to. And do the same for the word assimilation. Then fit this into the contested sentence. A Google serach shows that the term "Jewish community" +"assimilation" is about seven times more common than "Jewish community" +'acculturation", but that disparity means two things: (A) Assimilation is the preferred term, but (B) It is not preferred exclusively, and in fact the difference in useage is less than an order of magnitude. Thus both terms are considered valid in common use. RK

RK, I do not deny that assimilation is in widespread use. On the contrary, it is in too widespread use in my opinion. Within the Jewish community, it has taken on negative connotations that I reject. For example, the examples you quoted above (loss of Yiddish, Hebrew, prayer, etc.) are not necessarily negative phenomena. In fact, the rise of Yiddish (Ladino, Tat, Judeo-French, etc.) was also a result of acculturation. Unfortunately, too many people claim these are negative responses, while in fact, this process of combing cultures and integrating non-Jewih practices in Jewish life has been going on for thousands of years. Just take the names of the Jewish months, for example. They are Babylonian in origin (I am not willing to get into an argument about the origins of Purim, Chanukkah, etc., but suffice it to say that there are those that claim). In fact, and this is a POV statement, "assimilation" has benefited Jewish life in many ways. Furthermore, there are plenty of people who identify as Jews who are in no way "religious." The Bund, Labor Zionism, Yiddishists, etc. They have acculturated by incorporating non-Jewish ideas and trendsm, but they have not assimilated. Perhaps that is why there is a trend to move away from assimilation with its negative connotations, and move to acculturation, which is, at least for now, neutral. 208.184.43.162[?]

Is this what you meant? That's a horse of another color. I have absolutely no objections to any of this being mentioned and discussed, nor do I deny any of the specific facts you mention here. BTW, if you don't mind, Danny, I have just removed some totally useless comments, now that the issue has been clarified. Now we just need to work some of this into the article. RK

That's exactly what I meant. Danny

--- Orthodox Judaism: This group of movements includes Hasidic Judaism, Ultra-Orthodox Judaism and Modern Orthodox Judaism This statement is inaccurate. Religious Sephardi Jews would be considered orthodox by all jews, yet nobody would consider them as being part of the Orthodox movement. Orthodox Judaism is not a group of movements, it is Judaism which sticks to the principles of Judaism.

Your claims are absolutely incorrect. Every Orthodox Jewish rabbi I have met considers observant Sephardic Judaism a part of Orthodox Judaism. And many Sephardic rabbis say the same thing themselves. As for your polemical claim that Orthodoxy "is not a group of movements, it is Judaism which sticks to the principles of Judaism", any movement can just as easily make that claim. RK

Yeah, RK is right. -'Vert

---

Re: the recent edits about Jews who convert to another religion: the glaring question left unanswered is whether their children are Jews. Supposing a Jewish couple converted to Islam, then had kids, would the kids be considered Jewish? Also, it would be nice if all discussions of Jewish law had references, so if there's a dispute, it's clear whose ruling says what. DanKeshet

When a Jewish man comitts apostasy by willingly adopting another faith of his/her won free will, it sets in motion a chain of events that are easy to describein theory, but hard to work out in practice. If a Jewish man joins another faith and marries a gentile woman, their children are non considered Jewish by Jewish law. If a Jewish man joins another faith and marries a Jewish woman, then his children are still Jewish under Jewish law. However, if these children are raised in this other faith (e.g. Hinduism or Christianity) then the Jewish response to them varies. If they stay in that non-Jewish faith, they are not part of the Jewish community, and are effectively lost to the Jewish community for good. If they ever desire to become a part of the Jewish community in good standing, they can theoretically just decale their Jewishness and start attending their local synagogue. A conversation with their local rabbi on this subject is considered to be in order. Given the massive changes in the Jewish community that have occured since the enlightenement, many rabbis of all denominations are worried about the defacto flexible boundaries between non-Judaism and Judaism. Some rabbis and Jewish communal leaders are not comfortable with people who lived their livesd as Christians suddenly saying that they are Jewish, and wanting to be accepted as such. Some of this reluctance comes from their being burned by people who claim that they have "returned to Judaism", yet insist on maintaining some of their previous religion's beliefs. As such, some rabbis insist that such a person make a public show of good faith upon returning to the Jewish community, such as signing up for Jewish adult education classes, or even immersing in a mikveh in a return-to-Judaism ceremony that is based upon the ceremony for conversion. RK

In Conservative Judaism, the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards of the Rabbinical Assembly maintains that the child of a Jewish apostate, who has been committed to and socialized in a Christian church, be required to undergo a reentry ritual such as tevila (an immersion in a ritual bath). Most Orthodox rabbis maintain that the Shulkhan Arukh and other classic codes of Jewish law do not mandate this course, but given the current social circumstances Conservative rabbis find a compelling need to be strict. Both Conservative and Orthodox Judaism grant rabbis a wide leeway to handle each person's case uniquely. RK

Its the difference between a universalist religion[?] and an ethnic religion[?], isnt it? The debate is essentially between Orthodox and Reform Jews, as to whether Judaism is to be a Universalist religion or not, as I understand it, and the Israeli Supreme Court just chimed in (What business a state court has in ruling on affairs of religion I dont know) on this issue last summer didnt they - Saying that ordained Jews are Jews, period? -豎眩\

Uh, there is no debate at all over the extent to which Judaism ought to be (or is) a "universalist" religion. It isn't, period. Anyone can become a Jew, given they go through the right process (and the movements do debate over what the right process is), but no movement of Judaism has ever claimed that Judaism is or ought to be universal. Slrubenstein

Well, that explains it - sort of... I mean the definition of a universalist religion is that ethnicity doesnt play a role. What you seem to be saying is that the definitions of Universalism and ethnic religion are incompatible when applied to the Jewish ordaining process? I dont see the difference - either you can get in or not - it doesn't really matter what hurdles there are, does it? -豎眩

I understand a "universal" religion to be a religion that is valid for all people. Jews never claim that Judaism is for everyone. Jews do not claim that "Judaism" is "universally true." Slrubenstein

Based on the way I've seen you explain it before, it seems that Judaism is universally true in the sense that anyone can choose to become a Jew and following Judaism will be a valid way to enter into a covenant with God. It's not universally true in the sense that it is not exclusive, and allows for the possibility that other people can enter into other covenants or relationships with God in other ways. Is that a reasonable clarification? Wesley

Yes, although I would feel more comfortable if others like Danny and RK comment on this issue. Personally, I don't feel comfortable using "universal" to mean "valid for everyone." When peopl claim that something is universally true (forget religion, let's talk about morality or political systems), they do not mean that anyone may adopt this value or practice, they mean that it ir true for everyone. My dictionary (American Heritage pocket) has as its first definition "extending to or affecting the entire world." This isn't true about Judaism, and Jews don't especially desire Judaism to extend to include the entire world. I believe this is an important feature of Judaism and it ought to be clear.

On a side note, I wonder about Christianity. Am I correct that it is the official doctrine of all major Christian movements (Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, etc.) that it is desirable for all people to be Christian?

Perhaps what is needed here is not just a discussion of degrees of inclusion versus exclusion, but also a discussion of what is included/excluded? What I mean is, Catholicism may be universal in that it seeks to include all people -- but by necessity, it excludes all other relitions. Conversely, Judaism may exclude other people (a Christian or Muslim cannot also be Jewish), but it simultaneously includes other relgions as legitimate/valid/valuable? Slrubenstein

Slr, can you send me an e-mail? rkscience100 AT yahoo DOT com. I've got some information to pass on. (I am misspelling the e-mail address so that Spam-bots can't recognize the format and add it to their spam list.) Thanks. RK

I think that Judaism does claim that is is a factual truth about our world that one God exists, and that God is not a duality or trinity. In this sense, Judaism is making a claim that it wants all people to accept as true. Whether this is a "universal" claim depends on how you define the word. Various prayers in the siddur and verses in the Tanakh hold that at some point in the future, in the messianic era, all people will come to realize this truth about God. However, at the same time, Judaism does not demand that all people must convert to Judaism, nor does it demand that people will necessarilly convert to Judaism even in the messianic era! According to Judaism, God doesn't mind so much if some people happen to be in error on this point. Dualism, Trinitarianism and atheism are all rejected by Judaism as incorrect beliefs, yet holding such incorrect beliefs does not damn one to hell, and it does not cause any form of punishment. Rather, God judges individuals based on their behavior. RK

And, God does not expect non-Jews to behave the same way as Jews. for me the real point about Judaism not being "universalist" is that Jews do not think everyone should or has to keep kosher. Slrubenstein

I just can't seem to make it over the hump of my Christian assumptions to understand what you are saying, RK. After all, the ten commandments are instructions in both, the behavior of the mind and heart, and of the body too. It's not as though worshipping idols is spoken of in Scripture as though it were a little peccadillo, like over-eating, or an embarrassing error like the speeling mistakes that children make. I think I might be excused if I come away from reading the Pentateuch with the impression that it is a shameful and deadly sin to worship any other than the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. To do so is to ignore wisdom, hope and life. So, if Judaism does as you say make such a severe disjuncture between belief and life, it is hard for me to see the union between the description in the Bible and what you are describing. I understand that the idea of a "covenant people" implies greater obligation, but I do not understand how this obligation as it touches on beliefs can be reduced to simply being obligated to be more "correct". Isn't the first command the most comprehensive instruction? Isn't "I am the LORD, who brought you out of Egypt...you shall have no other gods before Me" the foundation of all other lessons? It seems to me that Judaism, insofar as it is Biblical, teaches that belief is the origin of real justice. But...not so? Mkmcconn

Mkmcconn writes "I just can't seem to make it over the hump of my Christian assumptions to understand what you are saying, RK. After all, the ten commandments are instructions in both, the behavior of the mind and heart, and of the body too. It's not as though worshipping idols is spoken of in Scripture as though it were a little peccadillo, like over-eating, or an embarrassing error like the speeling mistakes that children make."

I agree! Judaism teaches that it is always wrong to be an idol-worshipper. However, this does not mean that the only other option is to convert to Judaism. Judaism teaches us that despite their errors, God loves idol-worshippers, and allows them heavenly reward if they live a good and decent life. It is much harder to live such a life if one is an idol--worshipper, but it is still possible. Why this view? Jewish theology holds that all people hold atleast some erroneous beliefs about something, and that all people sin on some occasions. God doesn't expect perfection. God does expect a high standard of behavior, especially towards one's fellow man. RK

Mkncconn writes "I think I might be excused if I come away from reading the Pentateuch with the impression that it is a shameful and deadly sin to worship any other than the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob."

Especially for someone coming from a Christian background, I can understand how one can reach this conclusion. However, the classical Jewish interpretation of the Bible is that worshipping no God, or multiple gods, is certainly wrong, but not deadly, and does not automatically lead to damnation. God forgives us our errors if we live good and decent lives. At least, that is the Jewish view. RK

It seems to me that Judaism, insofar as it is Biblical, teaches that belief is the origin of real justice. But...not so?

You are totally correct. However, Judaism does not teach that correct belief always leads to real justice. Rather, it works on a more practical level: We note that even true believers in Jewish theology sometimes become bad people, and that even people who reject Jewish theology can become good people. Our concpetion of God thus rewards people on who they are and how they live, more than what they believe. This is not to say that belief is not important. Intellectual honesty compels us to say that certain things are true. RK

Mkmcconn, I think you are also making the mistake of thinking that "reading" is a simple act. Within Jewish tradition there is a strong claim that reading is not at all a simple act, that there is no one way to read or interpret the Bible. Judaism deals with this situation in a few ways: first, a belief in the oral law that God revealed to Moses at Sinai, without which one cannot fully understand the Written Law (What you call the Bible); second, specific techniques for interpreting texts; third, the notion that the interpretations of the Jewish community (or at least, community of scholars) have authority. Although this idea that reading is not a simple or straightforward act is not at all new in Judaism (and it is one thing that distinguishes even the most ultra- of ultra-orthodox Jews from Christian fundamentalists), a whole slew of contemporary literary scholars (e.g. Roland Barthes, Maurice Blanchot, Jacques Derrida) have argued that no text is transparent, not even Moby Dick or Hamlet. This is a general point that I do think gets at the heart of te issue.

As for the specific question of belief versus actions, yes, the first commandment involves belief in God -- this is "constitutive" of Judaism in that Judaism is based on a covenant between the Jewish people and God. Just as there is no reason to obey any law in the US if you reject the U.S. constitution (and thus, the authority of Congress and its laws), there is no reason to obey Halakha if you reject God. But on the other hand, a person can reject the authority of the Constitution and the Congress and still be a good person, even break some laws, but never get arrested. Similarly, a Jew can reject Jewish law and still be a good person -- just as non Jews ae not obliged to obey Jewish law, but, if they are good people, hae a share in the world to come.

When I was a child it just blew me away to learn that Christians believed that non-Christians couldn't go to heaven. OF course, it also took me a long time to figure out that if the children of Christians didn't believe in Jesus or go to Church, they really were not Christians, even if they had not converted to another relgion! Slrubenstein