Talk:Jacob Emden

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.

Biography: Science and Academia Start‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Shavuot#Tikkun Leil Shavuot|Tikkun Leil Shavuot]] The anchor (#Tikkun Leil Shavuot) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Saul

Aryeh Löb b. Saul, anything on him? and is it Saul wahl?

I am not sure how to add this information to the page but of interest maybe a statement by Gershom Sholem that "after thoroughly examining both Eibeschutz's own Kabbalistic writings and all the polemical works that they engendered I have been forced to conclude that he was indeed a Sabbatian, as both Jacob Emden and, in a later age, Heinrich Graetz insisted." Gershom Sholem, THE HOLINESS OF SIN, Commentary 42 (January 1971). If an editor of this article wants a copy of this article please e-mail me at grozenshteyn@optonline.net Grozenshteyn 02:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not directly relevant to this article. Add to article about Sholem.--Redaktor 21:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guide of the Perplexed

In the JE it only states "He was also opposed to philosophy, and maintained that the "Moreh" could not have been written by Maimonides ("Miṭpaḥat Sefarim")." There is very little context here. Did he state based on historical evidence he does not believe the Morah to of been written by Maimonides or was that just his personal disgust? He was very learned in all of Maimonides books including his personal letters. So I couldn't make gutful guess. 124.170.107.221 13:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Emden's views on Christianity

Currently about 20% of the article is devoted to Emden's views on Christianity. This seems wildly disproportionate - for example, the Jewish Encyclopedia article cited by this article doesn't even mention them in the article on Emden (it mentions them briefly in a different article). Shouldn't this material be sumarized? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's undoubtedly one of the most interesting and unique aspects of Emden's thought, which served as the basis of Harvey Falk's book, where Jesus is depicted as an Orthodox rabbi. Try to Google "Jacob Emden" - about half of the links are about Emden's views on Jesus and Christianty. On the contrary, I think that other sections should be expanded, especially Emden's biography and his anti-Sabbatian activity. Laplandian (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 billion Christians in the world, and and Christians tend to be far more interested in Emden's thoughts regarding Christanity than anything else he has to say. Nevertheless, 20% of the article is devoted to Emden's views on Christianity, and this is disproportionate - for example, the Jewish Encyclopedia article cited by this article doesn't even mention them in the article on Emden (it mentions them briefly in a different article). Will you summarize the section, or shall I? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not Jewish Encyclopedia. An average Wikipedia reader, who is far more likely to have Christian rather then Jewish background, would very likely dedicate 40% of this article to Emden's views on Christianity and other 40% to the concubines. For most people it's far more notable than the Sabbatian controversy etc. Laplandian (talk) 08:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is neither a Jewish or Christian encylopedia. We therefore provide a neutral and balanced article. Emden was a prolific author on various subjects, why are we emphasising Jesus and concubines here? It is like the unacceptable situation when 80% of the page on minyan was about women. Chesdovi (talk) 10:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If 20% percent of the page on minyan would be dedicated to egalitarianism, women's prayer groups, women's Torah reading at the Western Wall etc., I would find it perfectly reasonable and sensitive to what many people find sexist about the minyanim. Outside the Jewish would, Emden is most known precisely for his views of Jesus. Just google his name. And the concubines seem a hot topic (no pun intended).Laplandian (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emden would only rate this much space on his views of Christianity if either his own biographers did or if a mainstream academic source had listed Emden's views as being significant. Talk:Judaism's view of Jesus article listed Hoffman's book and a couple of other mainstream studies on Judaism's view of Jesus. Is Emden mentioned? If not... better to prune it. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Emden mentioned:

Jesus beyond Christianity: The Classic Texts, Gregory A. Barker and Stephen E. Gregg, pp. 29-31, Oxford University Press, 2010
English translation of Jacob Emden's letter about Jesus, Journal of Ecumenical Studies, 19:1, Winter 1982
Jesus the Pharisee: A New Look at the Jewishness of Jesus, by Harvey Falk (it's a revisionist book written from Orthodox perspective that portrays Jesus as an Orthodox Pharisee leader from Hillel's camp; the entire book is based on Emden's letter, as the author explains in the introduction)
From rebel to rabbi: reclaiming Jesus and the making of modern Jewish culture, by Matthew B. Hoffman, p. 259
Historical Heresies and Modern Jewish Identity, by David Biale, Jewish Social Studies New Series, Vol. 8, No. 2/3 (Winter - Spring, 2002), pp. 112-132 Laplandian (talk) 15:32, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, books on Jesus mention Emden's views on Jesus - but they, of course, aren't books about Emden. The rest of your comments aren't relevant to WP:UNDUE. Now, I'd prefer if you'd shorten the section to make the article comply with WP:NPOV, but I will if you are unwilling or unable to. I'll give it a day. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I agree that concubines deserve more attention that Jesus. Meanwhile, I deleted OR from the concubine part: the false claim that Emden's postulations were never put in practice. I take that whoever wrote this statement never studied in a Kollel with testosterone-driven young fellows. Laplandian (talk) 15:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They were indeed never put into practice, neither by him or any subsequent posek. The question is, did such measures need to be taken? Did not Emden himself claim that Jews, and how much more so "kollel fellows", have been "obligated to the yoke of Torah, which weakens the strength of the (evil) inclination?" Chesdovi (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed put into practice by a whole bunch of individuals, including even a few Hasidim (admittedly, of "borderline of the derech" type). And some of them manage to get underground heterim from various rabbis. A few poskim, at least in some specific situations, gave personal heterim to live with a woman without marriage and indeed referred to Emden and a few other poskim like Maharam Padua, who also allowed pilegesh. Read this article by Marc Shapiro (it's in Hebrew though): http://www.pilegeshpersonals.com/MilinHavivinHeb2.pdf Laplandian. And, of course, concubinage was openly practiced in some Sephardic communities and still somewhat covertly practiced by some Sephardim, though I don't know if any Sephardic posek refers to Emden in this case. (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, Thank you for improving the section on monotheism and including Emden's remarks about Islam. Laplandian (talk) 17:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get that the Maharam allowed pilegesh? I think he only permitted polygamy for Sephardim with ketubah and a whole bundle of other clauses. Also, I cannot believe that a few hasidim have been given heterim to live with women beside from their wives. I think you refer to the liberal movement. Emden did not permit it. Chesdovi (talk) 09:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not Maharam. It's Meir Katzenellenbogen, an Italian Renaissance-influenced rabbi known as Maharam Padua, known for liberal attitudes. Regarding the Hasidim, it work as follows: a half-off-the-derech man complains bitterly to a rabbi that he is unable to control himself during certain periods and does certain forbidden things, and - voila - some rabbis would give him a personal covert heter for pilegesh. Laplandian (talk) 13:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is it with these Hasidim?? Tut, tut. (Pssst: Got the contact details for this heter rabbi?) Chesdovi (talk) 13:29, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can easily get the contact details if you ask the guys with peyes who hang out in nightclubs around the Hasidic quarters of Brooklyn. :-)) But it's way (or rather oyway) off the topic, huh? Laplandian (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hope they're Jewish nightclubs, unless part of the heter invovles a quikie geirus? Not even Maharam Padua would allow it with shiksas. Chesdovi (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Jacob Emden. 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) 07:13, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship with Rabbi Yechezkel Katzenelnbogen

Does anyone know of a source for the claim that Emden's relationship with Katzenelnbogen were "strained from the very beginning"? From Sheilas Yaavetz, they seem to have started off on positive note, with their relationship growing more strained as time went by. If no one can find a source for this other than Jewish Encyclopedia, I think it should be edited. High Leader (talk) 05:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

JJ Shachter writes that the relationship was positive at first; I corrected the page and cited Shachter. High Leader (talk) 09:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Siddur

Does anyone know of any source for the claim that Emden was "accused of dealing arbitrarily with the text" of the siddur? I know of no source for such a claim, and it seems highly unlikely. Part of the reason Emden wrote his siddur was to counter the siddur of Rabbi Zalman Hena, who certainly was accused of dealing arbitrarily with the text. Emden opposed Hena's changes, & advocated refraining from tampering with the nusach, making him an unlikely candidate for such an accusation.

There was a controversy over what Emden wrote in the siddur about money changers, but obviously that has no connection to whether he "dealt arbitrarily with the text". If no one knows of any source for this, I think it should be deleted. High Leader (talk) 05:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fix

I accidentally messed up something in the "Sabbatean controversy" section in one of my recent edits, I'm having technical issues and not sure if it was fixed or not - please correct if necessary. High Leader (talk) 08:57, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing, @ Zeke921. High Leader (talk) 13:22, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]