Talk:Ger toshav/Archive 1

Archive 1

Gate residents

There is a confusion in point three on this page. Gerim HaShaar ("Gate Residents") are those who have abstained from idolatry and to whom carrion may be donated as charity to eat (like Nakhrim) but only if in need, and to whom the restrictions that pertain to an idolater (in terms of business and doing things that might be aiding idol worship) are forgone. This type of Ger was recognised when the Yoveil was in force and is comparable to a Noahide today. But a Ger Toshav who has been recognised by a Beth Din may not eat carrion, and these are the ones comparable to the Chabad "Jewish Gentiles". 193.63.146.184 09:59, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Comparison to Dhimmi

Why is this comparison being censored? The source provides the opinion of Mordechai Nisan:The author is Mordechai Nisan, a lecturer on the Middle East at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Nisan finds a correspondence between the discriminatory treatment of minorities, dhimmis, in Islamic countries, and the Jewish treatment of Noachides and resident aliens.Heraclius 00:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Who is Nisan? Why is his opinion notable? How do you know he really said that? Is the source credible? Don't forget, extreme minority opinions, even if accurately represented (which is unclear), should not be put in Wikipedia articles. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The source explains who Nisan is. Why isn't his opinion notable? Just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it non-notable. There is no majority or minority opinion when it comes to this. Please stop censoring valid, sourced opinions.Heraclius 00:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

A lecturer on the Middle East at Hebrew U has notable opinions about religious issues? There are tens of thousands of lecturers at Hebrew U, even assuming his unique opinion was correctly represented (and there's no reason to believe it was). In fact, the burden of proof is on you to show that he is

1. Notable.
2. Not an extreme minority opinion.
3. Represented accurately.

I welcome your evidence. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:56, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

With a name like Mordechai Nisan, he is probably a Mizrahi (?Iranian), and thus has a better chance of knowing what he is talking about. Even if he were not notable and a minority opinion, much of the Dhimmi piece is drawn from Bat Ye'or and Bernard Lewis, neither of whom could be described as impartial, and the former is hardly notable. Since that piece is allowed, let this stand. Incidentally, I doubt your suggestion that the Hebrew University has "tens of thousands of lecturers"; students, maybe. Oudemos

Harper and Row, New York

1988

ISBN-X

• There's the ISBN if you want to make sure the source is represented accurately.
• He wrote an article for the World Zionist Organization, so that makes him notable.
• Once again, there is no majority or minority opinion when it comes to this.

Also, you don't have to keep apologizing.

Heraclius 01:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

All you've done is shown that Harkabi got a book published. You have not shown that Nisan is notable, or that he was represented correctly, or that his views, if quoted correctly, are not an extreme minority opinion. Writing an article for the WZO is no more a measure of notability than being a lecturer (not even a professor!) at Hebrew U. Try again. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Fine then, what are Wikipedia's standards for notability?Heraclius 01:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Have a look at Wikipedia:Importance and Wikipedia:Notability. Jayjg is quite correct in saying that the views of one particular academic are not typically included unless that academic is regarded by his peers as an established expert in the field. Publishing books is easy and is not a very good indicator of notability. JFW | T@lk 01:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

First I need a website which explains Nisan's views. It needs to be credible, and non-copyvio. What have you got? After that, please read WP:NPOV regarding "extreme minority views", and explain why Nisan's view is not an "extreme minority view". Jayjg ^(talk) 01:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Comparing the concept of Dhimmi with Ger Toshav is more misleading than useful, it reminds me of the mediaeval writer (I forget which one) who described a banana as being like a cucumber but with skin that peels off and like a pineapple inside - some truth but in general far too misleading :D Kuratowski's Ghost 01:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The comparison of Dhimmi, Ger Toshav and Recusant (and others in non-Abrahamic religions) is very relevant; the suggestion of hiding Ger Toshav amongst Proselytes is less than honest. For the same political reasons that Israel is trying to rehabilitate the Irgun as "freedom fighters" - to contrast them with Palestinian "terrorists" - the highly emotive terms "Dhimmi" / "Dhimmitude" are at aimed Muslims / Islamists. Failure to demonstrate that the same concept exists in Judaism may suit certain political agenda, but does not advance understanding. Oudemos

Except its not the same concept. Dhimmitude does not apply to a particular geographic region and historically has been imposed on people against their will. Ger toshav applies only to a particular region and is largely a theoretical concept in not something historically imposed on people. Kuratowski's Ghost 13:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry?? Not the same concept? Both involve the concept of inferiority based on belonging to a different religion. Both require formal and public acknowledgment of the suzerainty of the superior creed. Both are defined by the boundaries of the superior creed's writ. And there are no similarities? Oudemos.

Mordechai Nisan is an established scholar and author of a number of peer-reviewed articles and books with quality publishers. To suggest that these publications cannot be cited in Wikipedia is ridiculous. It is NOT necessary to establish the notability of every author of a scholarly book or article - what's next, having to prove the notability of every BBC journalist? For the status of lecturer in various countries, see that article, to which a section on Israel could usefully be added (there is a link to an Israeli website but it is entirely in Hebrew). Itsmejudith 12:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPOV does not allow extreme minority views, and User:Heraclius, who was a sockpuppet of a banned user, didn't actually have the source. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I would only support the inclusion of a point made by this scholar if it can be found in a proper publication and not any old website. I do not know what his views are about anything as I have only scanned the titles of his publications. Do you have grounds for saying his is an extreme minority view? At first I thought he must be pro-Arab given the discussion above but apparently he wrote a favourable review of ''Eurabia'' in the ''Jerusalem Post'', which would place him towards the other extreme. I don't know anything about User:Heraclius either. How do you find out if a user is a sockpuppet? Itsmejudith 10:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Some important differences I'm aware of off the top of my head between the concept of Dhimmis in traditional Islamic and the concept Gerei Toshavim in Judaiam are the following, all based upon my learning of the Mishneh Torah. I intend to give specif references [chapter & halakha] later when I have more time

• • 1 A Jew is forbidden to kill an idolatous non-Jew. Were the Jews life truly threatened by the non-Jewish idolatry, then he would be allowed to kill him if nessariy; in such a case, however, there would be no difference between a non-Jewish idolater, a geir toshav, and any Jew. According to Jewish law anyone is allowed to kill [not murder] anyone else if the individual's life is truly endangered by the other person and there were no other way to safe himself. Islam traditionally not only doesn't forbid, but often requires that non-muslims in muslim lands be killed - regardless of an issue of self defense, unless, ideally, the non-muslim is a dhimmi. As regarding Jewish wars against non-Jewish peoples within the Land of Israel - these wars can only be fought with the approval and guidance of a valid Jewish Sanhedrin, a valid and TRUE prophet (there are laws with standards in comparable to many other religions as to what determines who is a prophet), neither of which we currently have. In any of these wars, assuming the above requirements are in place, the non-Jewish nations are first offered peace. If they accept it they are then offered to become gerei toshavim. If they refuse to become geirei toshavim, then they are warned in advance and given a chance to flee. If they do not flee on their own and we make war with them, the Jewish people are required by Jewish law not to totally surround them, so as to continously provide for them a way of escape if they change their minds and decide to flee instead of die. Islam doesn't limit its wars to a specific location, doesn't require that a prophet be alive at the time, and what other people (the U.S., Muslims, or whomever else) purposefully allow a way of escape during its wars?

Er ... 'Ten years ago, the Supreme Court convicted a rabbi of this crime, when he wanted to discuss with his students an issue of "permission to kill non-Jews." '(http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/789916.html) Oudemos

• • 2 There is no concept in Jewish law that non-Jews are forced to be to enter into the Land of Israel where they would be required to become a geir toshav. The only possible exception, which isn't currently in Jewish law -- and could only become Jewish law were we to have a TRUE prophet or a recognized and functioning Sanhedrin as well as a functioning Temple in Jerusalem -- is recorded in a prophecy in Zechariah 14. In the prophecy certain ones of the nations are compelled to visit Israel (not required to remain there) once a year. They are compelled by supernatural forces over wheather. I imagine that if this situation ever arises (i personally believe it will), the world will by that time be without doubt as to the Will of the Creator, and whether there is a Creator at all. If this situation never arises, then those who have disdain for Torah / Judaism have nothing to worry about and can not use this individual prophecy as a valid reason for disdain of the concept of geirei toshavim, since this prophecy would only be practical and actual at a time when [if] everyone will realize the same truth.

But if Jewish Law is brought into force over the existing inhabitants, then presumably they would be required to become geirei toshavim; a bit like if Muslims conquer a land and institute Sharia' law, they require all non-Muslims to become dhimmis? Oudemos

• • 3 The concept that a non-Jew must become a geir toshov as a legal requirement upon non-Jews in Talmudic law ONLY applies to a non-Jew who enters the Land of Israel. Islamic rule by muslims, on the other hand, is not limited any specific place and can spread through the whole world without any distinction between locations in regard to the concept of Dhimmis. The Islamic concept of a Dhimmi is to be enforced in any land that comes under Islamic rule.

• • 4 The concept of a ger toshav in Judaism is NOT ALLOWED to be enforced at any time other than when the Yovel is to be observed. The concept of a Dhimmi in Islam is not restricted to any particular time period.

• • 5 A non-Jew who enters the Land of Israel is free to leave at any time. Being that the Land of Israel is relatively small compared to many other lands in the world, it wouldn't necessarily take that long to leave, even by foot. Compare this to the ever spreading "Islamic World." It could take months or years for a person to get out of those lands in order to not be required to be a Dhimmi; in many cases the non-muslim would not be allowed to leave, as is currently the case with certain countries in which some Jews still remain.

• • 6 Non-Jews are not required to enter into the Land of Israel and become geirei toshavim OR Jews in order that they have a place in the World to Come (Jewish term for eternal life). Judaism teaches that any non-Jew who is careful to keep the Noahide laws out of obediance to the Almighty has a place in the world to come (Jewish term for eternal life), and that there is no need for a non-Jew to become a Jew. A person can have various types of religious ideas while still keeping the Noahide laws, so long as those ideas do not contradict the Noahide laws. There is nothing implied in the Mishneh Torah (which contains the main codification of the Noahide laws and laws on geirim) which states that a non-Jew must agree with every detail the various beliefs held among traditional Jews. It only prohibits idolatry and gives guidelines for actions - not beliefs (apart from being against idolatry). Jews themselves have various ideas concerning many different topics. Many of the greatest Rabbis in history have said that the majority of these various opinions are not binding but are from the learned speculations of various teachers, execpt for certain concepts such as those against idolatry and concerning monotheism.

ISLAM, on the other hand, does require that all people become Muslim. To become Dhimmi is second rate, and such a person may not even enter Jan Adan (Paradise). The Talmud, on the other hand, teaches that a non-Jew who keeps the Noahide laws, whether he is a geir toshav or not, can be on a spiritual level equal to the High Priest. Rambam, the only codifier of ALL of Talmudic law, even writes that Jews and non-Jews, slave and free, man and women, can all equally receive the spirit of prophecy. This is apparently taken from a very similar statement in the Talmud.

I guess I can stop with the list for now, but be assured that there are more distinctions. Maybe I'll continue with more when I (hopefully) come back to fill in specific references to all these.

-- in Jerusalm

Its no use explaining it. Leftist/socialists by definition can't face the reality that not everyone is equal, they feel that superiority must be slandered and inferiority must be excused or covered up so that everyone fits into the same Procrustean bed. Kuratowski's Ghost 14:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Inequality is based on personal ability and merit (or lack thereof), not belonging to a particular "club". The similarities between ger toshav and dhimmi are sufficient for it to remain a seperate category.

BTW, ISLAM (why the capital letters?) does not require that all become Muslim. It would like it to be so, in the same way that Christianity would like all Jews to embrace Jesus as the Messiah, but it does not insist upon it. You quote Maimonides, surely one of the best examples of co-existence of Muslim, Jew and Christian, before the dark "Light" of the Reconquista fell upon Cordoba. Oudemos

Maimonides was forced to flee his native Spain, and subsequently Morocco, because of Muslim persecution and forced conversion. One of his most famous works is his Yemen Epistle, addressed to the persecuted Jews of Yemen. Which part of that would indicate "surely one of the best examples of co-existence of Muslim, Jew and Christian, before the dark "Light" of the Reconquista fell upon Cordoba"? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is very little positive evidence for the life of this great thinker; scholars can only piece things together and make surmises. His exit from Spain is most likely to have occurred when he was a child. There is also an indication that towards the end of his life he was personal physician to a Muslim leader. Itsmejudith 13:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

It is well accepted that he and his family had to flee forced conversion at the hands of the Almohades, and his epistle to Yemen provided solace and strength to another severely persecuted Jewish population. Yes, he was the personal physician to a senior Muslim leader in Egypt later in his life, but that doesn't negate the other points. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It's accepted but if you delve deeper you'll find there's not much evidence - it's a long time ago. Anyway there's no point in warring over this. I only looked it up because on the dhimmi page a very devout Jewish guy arrived with some strong opinions, was not treated with the respect a newbie is due, and then disappeared again. It seems there's no decent biography of Maimonides, which is a terrible pity, but perhaps there simply are not enough remaining documents to support it. I wouldn't think the current climate is conducive to such a task either, since people seem unable to understand the past on its own terms without forcing it into the moulds of today's preoccupations. Itsmejudith 23:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Not perfect, indeed, but in comparison to what came after, pretty damn good. You still haven't answered why you have removed reference to Kach's policy of Ger Toshav. A minority view indeed, b ut so is Dhimmi to most Muslims. Oudemos

Modern Israeli treatment of non-Jews

So what's up with the last paragraph? I mean, I believe it, I've heard such things myself, but what exactly is the relevance? This is an encyclopedia, not a political message board. And despite the efforts of some Israeli sectors, Israel is still not ruled by biblical law.

Similarly, what is the link to Kach doing at the bottom?

I'm removing all references to Modern Israel for now, until someone gives some solid reasoning (which should go into the article itself, too). Yahewe 13:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If you go to the wikipedia page on the modern (extremist) Kach, you will find that they advocate a return to the condition of gerai toshavim. This was included (cut and pasted from the Kach page!) together with the link.

The general tenor of this page as it stands is intended to suggest that the concept of Ger Toshav is 2000 years dead. If you go to the page on the very similar concept of dhimmi / dhimmitude, you will find strong advocacy of the idea that muslims are going to bring the status back - advocay that uses some very dubious sources. Some extremist Islamists may advocate it - I have never heard reference to it - but certainly no more muslims advocate dhimmitude than Jews advocate gerai toshavim.

It is exactly the same as the way in which the murderers who blew up the King David Hotel are now described as "freedom fighters" while those Palestinians who murder Israelis are castigated as "terrorists". "Us" and "them": when people learn to deal with the "why" not the "who", then maybe we will have less violence.

Skewing the tenor of a page by ommission is as much a political act as by commission. Avoiding addressing the question (as whomever edited this page has done), merely delays finding a solution. Oudemos

User Dc-ijc has revert-warred and refused to show the relevancy of the text he keeps trying to insert. A ger toshav is a non-Jew who wants to be a part of the Jewish community and follow Judaism without converting. It has nothing to do with "the rights of non-Jews in Israeli-occupied territories" particularly since Israel is not a theocracy. The text Dc-ijc keeps posting has no religious context. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

btw, a ger toshav isn't anything like a dhimmi. Dhimmitude was coerced upon non-Muslims in Muslim lands who didn't want to convert to Islam, i.e. the choice was dhimmitude or death. A ger toshav becomes one voluntarily, someone who *desires* to follow Judaism without conversion, and never involved any kind of coercion. Meanwhile, this has nothing to do with the non-theocratic state of Israel. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 08:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

What is this article really about?

At the start of this article, the definition of Ger toshav is given as "Gentile who is a "resident alien," that is, one who lives in the Land of Israel under certain protections of the system." This is supposedly according to "Judaism" and "Torah." As sources, these are remarkably vague. Surely there is a section in the online Jewish Encyclopedia where one could find an unbiased description? Checking there, one comes across this quote:

"the institution of the ger toshab was without practical warrant in the Torah."[1]

So one would really like, in an encyclopedia, to see where the language for this "definition" comes from.

Most problematic is the statement and link Land of Israel. Follow this link and you find that

"the term "Land of Israel" usually denotes only those parts of the land which came under the British mandate, i.e. the land currently controlled by the State of Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, and sometimes also Transjordan (now the Kingdom of Jordan)."

So now the article is dealing with the rights of a "resident alien" in Israel, the West Bank, Gaza and Jordan -- resident alien defined as a non-Jew.

One can see how this idea would be popular among Kahanists, which is probably why this article had been linked from the main "Kach" article. However Wikipedia (and I am fairly new here) does not seem to me the appropriate venue for broadcasting Kahanist ideology in the guise of encyclopedia articles.

If the article is strictly about religious matters, it needs to be re-written with actual sources, and put into its proper cultural and historical context. As of now it reads like a recruiting pamphlet for right-wing Christian zionists.

If the article is going to make claims about the "protections of the system" for non-Jews living in the present-day West Bank and Gaza, it needs to also include the rather prominant counterclaims of the denial of rights for the same people (leaving Jordan out of the discussion for the moment), including for example, the unilateral temporary denial of access to Muslim men below the age of 45 (and all non-Israelis) to pray at the Al Aqsa mosque, and the banning of Palestinian traffic on Al Shuhadah street and other places in downtown Hebron (Khalil).

MPerel above states the following definition of "Ger toshav":a "non-Jew who wants to be a part of the Jewish community and follow Judaism without converting." If that is the case, it needs to be stated clearly **in the article** and any references to rights of a "resident alien" in the "Land of Israel" with all of the associated political connotations should be removed.

By the way, all of the text I posted and that SlimVirgin and MPerel deleted was clearly sourced, in stark contrast to the rest of the body of this article. I look forward to reading others' viewpoints on this. Dc-ijc 05:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, let's clear up a misconception. In its legal context, there is no present-day application of ger toshav nor has it been applied for centuries. This is why that link you mention says "It seems more probable that Maimonides and Simeon ben Eleazar wished to convey the idea that, for their day, the institution of the ger toshab was without practical warrant in the Torah." The reason legal recognition of the ger toshav can't be applied today nor in Maimonides' day (in the Diaspora in 12th century Spain and Egypt under Muslim and Christian rule) is that Jewish law (halacha, not to be confused with modern-day Israeli law) relating to the rights and responsibilities of resident aliens (those living among the Jewish people in the land of Israel who followed Noachide laws yet were not converts to Judaism) became moot when the majority of Jews themselves were outside the land and in exile. Note that the existence of the modern State of Israel does not qualify as an end to this exile. The laws relating to the ger toshav only correspondingly apply when the jubilee is in effect, an halachic observance every 50th year concerning the land when all twelve tribes of Israel are in possession of the land (in a theocratic state). As this is not the current state of affairs, legal application of "ger toshav" remains moot.

However, in current day usage, the term "ger toshav" sometimes is informally and loosely applied to Noachides in general, concerning how Jews should relate to nonJews who follow the seven Noachide laws. But it has no application or relevance to the modern non-theocratic State of Israel. Does this clarify things for you?

Meanwhile, where is this article linked from the Kach article? And what exactly in the article do you think makes it read "like a recruiting pamphlet for right-wing Christian zionists"? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

First, I use the past tense, the article *had* been linked from the main article about Kach. There is still a reference to this on this discussion page, in the post by Oudemos, i.e. "Kach's policy of Ger Toshav". Your post makes an excellent case for removing this entire article, as it reflects a policy that has been out of use for hundreds of years, was marginal at most, and at present is only "informally and loosely" applied concerning the Noachide community. Perhaps "Ger toshav" deserves at most a short paragraph in an article on the Noachides?

If this article's relevance and importance is as a Kach policy, it deserves the utmost scrutiny as outright propaganda for a designated terrorist organization (by the US and Israel among others). For example, if by becoming a "part of the Jewish community" you are refering to Christian zionists who travel to the occupied territories in the West Bank to join "Jewish communities" there, i.e. illegal Israeli settlements on militarily occupied land, then this is a major political dimension of the whole topic and needs to be discussed.

However I'll take you at your word in terms of the interpretation you put forward.

In that case, it is important to remove all references and links in the article referring to the modern democratic state of Israel, and the militarily occupied territories of the West Bank.Dc-ijc 04:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

MPerel regards a Ger Toshav as being utterly different from a dhimmi in that the status of Ger Toshav is voluntary; yet "In all cases, the statement is a formal sign that the Gentile is on a righteous path, and as such, they must by law receive certain legal protections and special charity/financial aid from the community" The dhimmi is also entitled to protections (read Habshush on the subject) and rather than benefit from being Ger Toshav, pays a head tax (as Recusants in the UK used to) not to. There is little difference between the inferior status of dhimmi or ger toshav - whether in terms of historical irrelevancy or extreme Religionist adoption.

If in recent elections to the Knesset, Kach stood on a manifesto containing a policy of enforcing the status of Gerai Toshavim on all non-Jews within Israel, then this should be referred to in the Ger Toshav page and linked to the Kach page (mysteriously that part of the Kach page has been "wiped from the page of history"!)

"The Land of Israel" is a vague biblical term, which at its maximum extent encompassed parts of the areas of British Mandatory Palestine / TransJordan / Mesopotamia (all arbitrarily drawn on a map by Mssrs Sykes and Picot.) The modern state of Israel's borders were defined by UNGAR 181, and subsequently by the 1948 Armistic Lines. The 1967 "border" is not acknowledged in international law.Oudemos 15:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Dj-ijc and Oudemos, firstly, I'm not completely opposed to redirecting this article to Proselyte, where the concept is already briefly discussed and appropriate content from this article could be merged there. I note that the article Proselyte has its own problems, however, confusing and conflating Judaism and Christianity, which need to be corrected, and I've made a minimal start there. Noachide already redirects there and anyway, while a ger toshav is a Noachide, a Noachide isn't necessarily a ger toshav, except in a broader more general sense, since ger toshav specifically refers to Noachides living among Jews in a theocratic state in the Land of Israel.

As far as this article's relevance and importance in relation to Kach policy, anything political going on in modern day Israel has nothing to do with this Jewish concept since ger toshav only applies within the context of a theocratic state. It certainly predates Kahanism by a couple of millenia. However, based on some internet searches I see that Kach/Kahanists do indeed appear to have some sort of philosophy misusing this ancient concept of ger toshav to justify the idea of what amounts to ethnic cleansing, but this strays far, far from the meaning of ger toshav in Torah as it is expressed in Halacha, which is more about the acceptance of outsiders who give up idolatry and take upon themselves the seven mitzvot (Noachide laws) and want to come join (short of actual conversion) and live with the Jewish people in a theocratic state in the land of Israel. It is not about giving ultimatums to existing residents living in the land to conform to a Jewish government or leave. The misinterpretations of "ger toshav" by a modern day political/terrorist group belong in the Kahanism article, not in the general article that relates to the concept in Judaism. Just as some remote misinterpretation of a concept in Sharia by an extremist terrorist Islamist group would be better addressed in the article on the group, not the article on the Sharia concept. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I am in favor of moving relevant text to the article on "Proselyte", since that seems to be the general category as indicated by the Jewish Encyclopedia, problems notwithstanding. Also a paragraph seems to be in order in the "Kach" article, with sources. Should this article remain on its own, the glaring problem appears to me the link Land of Israel with its current political connotations. I'm not sure what the right alternate language is... Pre-diaspora Kingdom of Israel? Kingdom of Judea (and how do the Samaritans fit into this picture)? Israel/Palestine before the Roman destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70AD? Dc-ijc 07:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Tip of the hat to the Noachide Mafia who apparently are in full control of this article. As it reads due to numerous reverts by SlimVirgin and Jayig, "Ger tohav" is a shining example of Kahanist ideology on Wikipedia. And to MPerel, Sharia is a living concept in Islamic discourse, as opposed to an obscure, and obsolete law from ancient Judaism which has been revived for various purposes. Had this article been actually open to discussion and consensus, I would have supported, in addition to a paragraph of Kahane's revival of Ger toshav, its revival among some in interfaith marriages, for which there is some evidence on the net. I still maintain that the reference to Land of Israel should be replaced by "ancient kingdoms of Israel" taking the article out of the contention of the current military occupation of the West Bank, and those Jewish and Christian fundamentalists who consider it Biblically justified. Dc-ijc 07:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Halacha isn't obsolete, it's as living to Judaism as Sharia is to Islam. The specific laws applying to ger toshav only apply under certain conditions which aren't currently present (i.e., a Jewish theocratic state in the land of Israel), but that doesn't make them obsolete. Just like there are many laws which only apply when the Temple is standing. Again, ger toshav was about welcoming outsiders/strangers to live in the community (in a theocratic state in the land of Israel) as long as they were not idolators. I guess I don't understand how you think this is a shining example of Kahanist ideology. Kahanists do have some distorted incorrect view of ger toshav, which is not what *this* article is about, and which as I mentioned, would be better placed in the Kahanist article instead. Also, since the article Land of Israel isn't about "the current military occupation of the West Bank", I'm not sure I understand your concern with that link. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think not "currently present" is a paraphrase of "obsolete", unless that is, you are advocating or anticipating a return to a Jewish theocratic state, as is the Kahane movement, which revived the idea (in your words, a "theocratic state in the land of Israel"). The link Land of Israel offers the following definition:

the term "Land of Israel" usually denotes only those parts of the land which came under the British mandate, i.e. the land currently controlled by the State of Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, and sometimes also Transjordan (now the Kingdom of Jordan)."

This includes the West Bank under military occupation (plus).

That is why I suggest using the politically neutral (unless you are in favor of Jewish theocracy in the Middle East) "ancient kingdoms of Israel" Dc-ijc 06:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you realize that what you or I "advocate", "anticipate", or "are in favor of" is not really pertinent in terms of editing this encyclopedia article. We only need to unattachedly explain ger toshav as it relates to Judaism. And no it's not "obsolete" in Judaism, and in fact Judaism *does* anticipate a return to a theocracy, the culmination of a messianic age where the world is perfected and at peace...with swords beat into plowshares, lions and lambs dwelling together, yada yada. Quite frankly, I don't buy into such an idealistic fantasy world. The more likely scenario is that we will eventually simply self-destruct. But like I said, our personal opinions are irrelevant as far as this article goes. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 08:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)