Talk:Committee on Jewish Law and Standards

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Judaism Low‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proposed Merge to Conservative Halakha

This content would better be placed in the larger context of the movement. I saw we move it to Conservative Halakha along with the CJLS article in order to provide a more informative and cohesive series of articles. --yonkeltron 06:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The CJLS is a major Rabbinical Assembly committee, and needs its own article. Halakha, as interpreted by Conservative Judaism, is not identical to a discussion of this committee. "Conservative Halakhah", if such terminology is appropriate, is based on a very wide variety of sources including the Torah, Mishnah, Talmud, Responsa, and various Traditional/Conservative poskim, such as Louis Ginzburg, Isaac Klein, Joel Roth, and more. It is also based on responsa from the CJLS, but also responsa from the Masorti Movement in Israel's legal body, the Va'ad Halakhah. Conservative Jews also accept as valid the responsa of many Orthodox rabbis, even if they do not view them as binding. Therefore we should not totally merge these two articles.

However, there is a great amount of unnecessary overlap, leading to the same topic being described in two different ways. This is being done for no good reason, and is in some measure my fault. I think that I will move some text from the "CJLS" article to "Conservative Halakhah", but leaving most of the CJLS article intact.

The idea is to follow the good pattern of other Wikipedia article: Summarize the major topics, and then link to another article where they are discussed in more depth. I will do this one piece at a time. Please let me know how you think I am doing. Mark3 15:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of recent edits

I reverted a number of recent edits by User:Mark3. The edits simply removed reliably sourced material, which in the editor's view portrayed the CJLS as "more radical than it really is". It is one thing to debate the way in which material is characterized (and the previous tone may have gone too far in the direction of critics). But it is another thing to simply remove legitimate, well-sourced material because one doesn't like it or its implications. The article needs to preserve a balance between supporters and critics of the CJLS and its actions. Simply removing critical material and leaving an article containing only a favorable viewpoint is not Wikipedia's way. See WP:NPOV. Similarly, material simply cannot be presented as fact in narrative, it needs to be attributed to reliable sources, particularly on controversial matters. Editors should expect that virtually every statement added to the article on highly controversial matters will require a source and unsourced statements will be challenged by editors who disagree -- and Wikipedia policies, which require sourcing and strongly encourage editors to challenge unsourced material, permit this.

I am not certain what specific statements I removed in my previous edits, but I agree that I should not remove relevant material. Mark3

There were reliable sources presented that the CJLS, in determining that Conservative Rabbis will not adjudicate mamzerut cases, expressly declared that the CJLS has a power to overturn Biblical law inconsistent with modern morality. Because sources were provided for the claims involved, they should not have been removed.

I only tried to explain the reasoning behind the CJLS teshuvah on this subject, but I thought that I only added information. I didn't delete information on purpose. Mark3

A better course of action in such matters would be to add {{fact}} tags (which appear as {{Fact}}) to claims one believes are unsourced and discuss the matter on the article's talk page. It might also be better strategy to add new material before removing old, so a reversal of the removal doesn't end up removing everything. Best, --Shirahadasha 00:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know what you think of my edits today. I am open to rewording/rewriting if you think it is necessary. I have added many more sources, many with page numbers and quotes, and changed some wording. Most significantly, I have not deleted any information in the previous edit of the article. I could even obtain more quotes with page numbers in a couple of days if requested. Mark3 20:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The decision to move most details to Conservative Halakha may render this dispute irrelevant to this article. The dispute appears to concern the CJLS's reasoning for its opinion regarding a single Conservative responsum, the one on Mamzerut. Best, --Shirahadasha 15:36, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After my last edits, just now, I think the previously stated conflicts about the article are moot. Basic cases are now discussed here, while details are presented in the "Conservative Halakha" article. That article may now be one of the better articles on the internet about this subject. Mark3

Question: was the Dorff teshuva voted on as a Takanah? I was under the impression that papers were only votes on as takanot if they are deemed not to be sufficiently grounded in halakha. The Dorff paper certainly tries real hard to be grounded in halakha, so I thought it was voted on as a Teshuva. Flamholz 21:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dorff responsum did not characterize itself as a Takanah, but the Roth responsum disagreeing with it did. Since the CJLS adopted both, it would appear to be the official position of the CJLS that calling it a Takanah and calling it not a Takanah are both acceptable Conservative positions, and you should consult your local rabbi as to whether it is or is not considered a Takanah in your area. It should be noted that this discussion section concered the responsum on Mamzerut, which was regarded as a Takanah. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove some material

I removed this material from the section on criticism of the CJLS.

Within the rather widely defined philosophy known as Conservative Judaism, there are significant disagreements as to how halakhah should be interpreted and applied. For example, one prominent Conservative Rabbi, David Wolpe, has stated that the Conservative Movement relies on aggadah as much as halakhah, and as such is not a Halakhic movement anymore.

This is not, in any way, a criticism of the CJLS! In fact, this entire section should be removed, as it is a poorly written mishmash of accusations that Conservatuve Judaism itself is not halakhic, which is the topic of an entirely different article. RK (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Committee on Jewish Law and Standards. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Committee on Jewish Law and Standards. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]