Talk:Judaism/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Old discussions archived

I've removed the old contents of this page to Archive 6. It was far too unwieldy. There are, however, some useful discussions on it. If someone else has the time, I recommend re-arranging the archive by topic.Nomist 17:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Page was getting unwieldy again. Archived some inactive discussion to Archive 7. Shykee 20:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)shykee

What makes a person Jewish?

With respect to the following statement in the article:

"A Jew who ceases to practice Judaism is still considered a Jew, as is a Jew who does not accept Jewish principles of faith and becomes an agnostic or an atheist; so too with a Jew who converts to another religion. However, in the latter case, the person loses standing as a member of the Jewish community and becomes known as an apostate."

One denies the existence of God and remains part of the Jewish community yet one who adopts another God is ejected as an apostate? An interesting paradox to be sure but an absurd contradiction, and one doubts there is any collective agreement among Judaism at large in drawing the line so to speak. Of more import, the statement ascribes a pejorative term (Apostate) that is typically applied by Christians. A Jew who ceases to practices Judaism is still a Jew although they might considered to be non-observant by observant Jews depending on the background of the particular Jew making the observation. If the author wishes to retain the statement, than the definition of a Jewish Apostate should simply be one who claims to longer be a Jew. If the author wishes to state that according to a particular sect of Judaism (e.g. Orthodox), an apostate is..., that's fine assuming the author has an appropriate citation to make the claim.

Logical or not, agree with it or not, there is debate in the Jewish community on these issues. Some Jews do believe that a Jew who converts to another religion is no longer Jewish, and some Jews believe that a Jew who does not observe certain traditional commandments (e.g. the Sabbath) is a hebrew term called apikoros that is often translated as 'apostate.' --Shirahadasha 01:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

There should be more than 15 million followers

Looks like vandalism in the opening paragraph...Jarfingle 00:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Agreed...Nweinthal

The use of the word "followers" is incorrect for a non-religous jew is not a follower in the sense that he follows judaism it should say "15 million" jews--69.114.174.131 00:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

restoring deleted paragraph

This encyclopedia makes a distinction between Judaism and Jew because many people today make this distinction. So I have no objection to the italicized explanation of the difference between this article and the Jew article. But this is a distinction between articles that we have to make as editors. As editors however we are forbiddent o impose our own points of view on the subject matter of articles, this violates NPOV and NOR. To delete the paragraph in question is to force this article to reflect a particular point of view. Now, I have no objection to this article saying that sinc ethe Enlightenment i.e. in the modern period some people, especially early leaders of the Orthodox and Reform movement, defined Judaism as specifically a religion, and others, namely Zionists, as a nation. But these remain modern distinctions and reflect particular points of view. Boyarin is expressing another point of view, those of scholars espeically historians who study Judaism not only in the modern period but in its pre-modern antecedants. His view is valid and should be included. This paragraph complies with our policies: it is NPOV, and does not violate NOR, and it provides a verifiable source. This is exactly what good articles are supposed to do. It is not for an editor to delete a verifiable source just because that editor doesn't agree with it. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe that you misunderstand. Nobody is advocating that Boyarin's views be censored. However, the word "Judaism" primarily refers to the religion in any dictionary. Let us not imply that the religion Judaism (i.e. laws and beliefs) is some sort of wishy-washy amorphous thing not easily identified. The view of Boyarin is perhaps applicable to the Jewish people, hence it's suitability for the article "Jew". Is Boyarin arguing that "Judaism" as defined in the dictionary is wrong and that really the word refers to the Jewish people ? Shykee 04:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)shykee

Professors at Berkeley (or Yeshiva university, or Harvard, or wherever) trump dictionaries. If people want a dictionary definition they can, well, go to a dictionary. This is not a dictionary, it is an enbcyclopedia article. Its contents should be based on the research of current scholarship, and represent different views found there., If there is an established scholar who contests Boyarin's view, we can add that to the article. Boyarin is arguing exactly what it says here, that modern Western categories like religion, race, ethnicity, culture - categories that modern Western dictionaries, for example, typically rely on - do not easily apply to Judaism. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of one's POV, there exists a word that refers to the religious practices and beliefs of the Jewish people. That word is "Judaism". Based on the quote, the extent of Boyarin's theory is that the identity "Jew" consists of more than just the religious aspects; it is nonsensical to suggest that he or any other "established scholar" argues that there is no word in the English language that refers primarily to the religious aspects of the Jewish people. Shykee 23:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)shykee

Boyarin is talking about a defining element of Judaism. "Jewishness" is an essential element of Judaism. You can have two linked articles that address related topics, we do this all the time - we have linked articles on Tanakh and Talmud. No one would claim that means we should delte reference to the Talmud and Tanack from this article because they are not the same thing as Judaism." They are part of it, and so despite there being separate linked articles, there is some discussion of them in this article. Ditto Jewishness. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

You say "Jewishness" is an essential element of Judaism". What in the world does that mean ? I hope you will excuse me for saying that that is an extremely confused idea. Here is a simple examination of the concepts: Judaism, it seems we have agreed, refers to the religious rules and beliefs of the Jewish people. Jewishness, I also hope we agree, consists of all the aspects involved in being Jewish. Therefore, it is exactly the opposite -"Judaism is an essential element of Jewishness". Again, the quote of Boyarin only argues that "Jewishness" consists of more than just the religion; that theory/idea belongs in an article discussing "Jewishness" i.e. the article "Jew". This article, however, discusses one of the aspects of "Jewishness" (according to Boyarin) called Judaism. Perhaps there are other aspects- Jewish humor, Yiddish theater, Hebrew literature, etc. All those aspects do indeed belong in the article "Jew". And just as in those articles we do not find Boyarin quoted, even more so in the article "Judaism" where it is counter-productive to quote him; it confuses the issue and implies that the religion Judaism is some sort of amorphous shaky thing.Shykee 20:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)shykee

Shykee, the passage is relevant and sourced. I see no reason to remove it so I've restored. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Please read the earlier comments and respond to the points before unilaterally editing. In short, Boyarin is not relevant here. Judaism is the religion, it is not "gefilte fish" and Jewish culture etc., which are relevant to the article "Jew". Quoting Boyarin in this article confuses the issue and implies that the religion Judaism is some sort of amorphous wishy-washy thing. Shykee 01:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)shykee

Hello, Slim, Slrubin, et. al. Regarding the above paragraph, although I found what I am almost positive is the source, after reading the paragraph, its juxtaposition with the article, and Shykee's comments, s/he seems to have a point. The article more appropriately references the identity of being "Jewish" than it does Yiddishkeit or Judaism. Why do you feel otherwise? Thanks -- Avi 01:59, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Shykee, you are violating our NPOV policy. Stop insisting unilaterally on deleting all views you happen not to like. This is not your personal blog. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Please attempt to respond to my point (and Avi's) rather than resorting to hyperbole. You are raising a serious charge and I hope that you have carefully considered your accusation. I am obviously not attempting to censor any POV as I merely advocate including it in the article "Jew" rather than the article "Judaism". Your insistence on twisting Boyarin's theory to be applicable to the article "Judaism" is itself your personal POV that is not published anywhere. It would take either the basest ignorance or the basest malice to suggest that Judaism does not consist of a well defined religious system. Again, in the future please attempt to respond to the issues rather than resorting to unfortunate hyperbole. Shykee 14:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)shykee

I think we have a classic distinction between a "ness" and an "ism". An 'ism' generally describes a body of thought; a "ness" describes qualitities of a thing. Thus Boyarin's claim that what is important to being Jewish is not a set of ideas but a set of qualities that includes much more than a set of ideas is a claim about Jews' 'nesses, not their 'isms. --Shirahadasha 01:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thirteen principles II

Shykee, Biblical and Rabbinic Hebrew sometimes cannot be translated exactly. Please see the Rambam (Maimonedes), Perush Hamishnayos (Explanation of the Mishnah), Sanhedrin, 10th Chapter, upon which these are based, and for example, in the second Yesod or "Fundamental", the Rambam specifically referes to G-d's ONENESS and UNITY, and how that unity is unlike any human concept of unity. Uniqueness completely misses the point. I am going to revert all of the edits, and then perhaps adjust the grammar. -- Avi 02:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

You are correct concerning "uniqueness" as not capturing the point of the actual explanation of the Rambam in Chelek. My error was to translate the words as found in the siddur; interesting how very few know that those are not the actual words of the Rambam. Actually, the main reason for my edit was #8, as the punctuation in the version before actually changed the meaning of the Rambam! A smaller issue was the translation of "Shelaimah" which is more accurately translated "complete". Additionally, the verse in #Ten is more accurately translated "comprehends all their actions (or deeds)". The present translation misses the proof from the verse completely. Shykee 03:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)shykee

Boyarin paragraph: Take II

Here is the paragraph, emphasis added is my own:

Judaism does not fit easily into conventional Western categories, such as religion, ethnicity, or culture, in part because most of its 4,000-year history predates the rise of Western culture and occurred outside of the West. During this time, Jews have experienced slavery, anarchic and theocratic self-government, conquest, occupation, and exile; in the Diasporas they have been in contact with, and have been influenced by ancient Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, and Hellenic cultures, as well as modern movements such as the Enlightenment (see Haskalah) and the rise of nationalism (which would bear fruit in the form of a Jewish state in the Levant. They also saw an elite convert to Judaism (the Khazars), only to disappear as the centers of power in the lands once occupied by that elite fell to the people of Rus and then the Mongols. Thus, Talmud professor Daniel Boyarin has argued that "Jewishness disrupts the very categories of identity, because it is not national, not genealogical, not religious, but all of these, in dialectical tension."

The paragraph begins talking about Judaism and brings as a quote Boyarin's statement about Jewishness in which he states it is not religious. To me, it is obvious that Boyarin is referring to the idea of "Jewishness", not the religion known as "Judaism". Thus, the paragraph as a whole is unsourced, and worse, is guilty of confusing the terms "Jewishness" and "Judaism", and it should be removed. After the first word, everything talks about Jewish identity, Jewish experience in the Diaspora, influence of other culters on Jewish thought. No one argues that this had an effect on the PRACTICE of Judaism, but it is directly referring to JEWISH responses and reactions, not JUDAISM's responses. -- Avi 14:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Your whole argument is premissed on a distinction between religion and a different kind of identity, you can call it racial, ethnic, or national - the distinction between "judaism" and "jews" or "jewishness.". But Boyarin's point is that this distinction is foreign to Judaism and obscures an understanding of Judaism. You of course are welcome to disagree with it. But that is no reason to delete it. Moreover, you may find a scholarly source that disagrees with Boyarin. But that too is not a valid reason for deleting the Boyarin paragraph, only a reason for adding the other view, properly identified. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I do not even argue with most of your point, but it is the term Jew that has changed, not Judaism. The definition of Jewery by religion is difficult according to Boyarin, but not the definition of the religion by Jewery. Which is why, this is an excellent, nay, required, addition to the page Jew, but not Judaism, in my opinion. It is not that the view is "present" or "absent", it is that this is drectly referring to Jewery, not Judaism, and so I feel it is misplaced in the Judaism article. The converse of a statement is not necessarilly true. -- Avi 01:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Boyarin is arguing that it is a vast oversimplification to call Judaism a religion, indeed that it is deeply problematic to call Judaism a religion. This article is about Judaism and Boyarin's view is relevant. I have never argued that all agree with him. But the only solution appropriate to our NPOV policy is for you to add other points of view and not remove this point of view that you do not like or share. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Avi, with all due respect, I think you are getting humg up on and being misled by Boyarin's use of the word Jewishness. He is not using it to refer to the Jewish people. It is a neologism and not a very nice sounding one. But his point is that the word "Judaism" itself is a neologism (I do not believe the word exists in the Bible. Do you know if it exists in the Talmud? I mean, Yeahdut or whatever the correct translation is?). The reason he resists using the word Judaism is because the word itself was invented to identify a "Jewish" religion in the modern age. But if this article is about Judaism in some totality, including not just a modern religion in the form of say Reform or Orthodox Judaism but in the form of the Talmud and the Tanakh, then Boyarin's point is valid and relevant. I repeat, this is a view held to somne degree by many modern historians (Boyarin's is perhaps a more extreme form of the view, but it is held by other historians). Please feel free to add other views. But do not delete a view you do not like. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we have a classic distinction between a "ness" and an "ism". An 'ism' generally describes a body of thought; a "ness" describes qualitities of a thing. Thus Boyarin's claim that what is important to being Jewish is not a set of ideas but a set of qualities that includes much more than a set of ideas is a claim about Jews' 'nesses, not their 'isms. --Shirahadasha 01:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion about what is important about being Jewish is interesting ... I will have to think about it. However, I am pretty certain about one thing: this is not what Boyarin is claiming, not in the passage quoted or the work it comes from. I have no idea whether he holds this view about Jewishness, he may, or may oppose it. But the quote in the passage under consideration is not claiming that Jewishness is about more than a set of idea (an "ism"). That is not what he is saying. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Boyarin quoted,"it is not national, not genealogical, not religious, but all of these, in dialectical tension". Is this not obviously saying that the Jewish identity consists of more than just the religion (i.e. an "ism"), but rather includes other aspects? Nowhere do we see Boyarin arguing that there is no religion however! Rather that there is more to Jewishness than just the religion. But there is a religion. Please explain where you see otherwise. Shykee 01:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)shykee

The sentence has two clauses. The first clause is his main point - his originakl contribution to theoretical debates about this collection of suff including people, places like the Temple, texts like the Tanakh, midrash, Talmud, Shulcahn Aruch, etc: "Jewishness disrupts the very categories of identity." This is his main point - a disruption of our ways of identifying things (such as, ethnicity versus religion). The second clause is commentary, an attempt to say something more positive than the primary assertion which calls the meaning and meaningfulness of these words into question. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere are you addressing the question: where do you see Boyarin argue that there is no well defined religion Judaism? Your grammatical and scholarly answer, after decipherment, boils down to saying that Boyarin argues that our catagories of identity (i.e. defining identity based on religion alone) is wrong. Yes indeed we all agree that that is what he is saying, but again, nowhere have you demonstrated that Boyarin is saying that there is no well defined system of beliefs and practices. Shykee 02:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)shykee

I am sorry you think I am not addressing the question, as I believe I am adddressing it directly. Boyarin is NOT saying that defining Jewish identity based on religion alone is wrong, I know of no where that he says that. what he does say is that categories of identity - categories plural, i.e. a list of categories such as judaism, race, ethinicity, are disrupted. The category of race is disrupted. AND the category of ethnicity is disrupted. And the category of religion is disrupted. That is the point. The category of religion is disrupted. I am sorry you do not understand this point. Perhaps you should actually read his works. but even though you cannot understand this view, it should still be represented in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Frankly it is hard to tell whether you are asking in good faith or just being argumentative. I will try to take you in good faith. You ask where Boyarin says that there is no well defined system of beliefs and practices. I do not think that this is his point. I think you are reading your own personal POV into things: religion = well defined beliefs and prfactices, Jews have that, therefore they have religion. As I have said countless times you are welcome to your views. But they are not Boyarin's. Yes, Boyarin thinks jews have beliefs and practices. I suspect based on my own reading of Boyarin - and yes, i mean reading books, which I encourage you to do - he thinks there is any point to debating over whether it is a well-defined system, a sort-of-well-defined system, a not very well-defined system or whatever. But this is not the point at hand. his point is that the beliefs and practices disrupt modern western categories of identity like religion. That is his point and it is valid. You are as I repeat constantly welcome to your own POV and if there are sholoars of Judaism who hold viewss differring from Boyarins we can add them with citations. That is no reason to delete Boyarin's view. you seem opposed to our NPOV policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. I decline to be involved in immature hyperbole. As to the issue, I will quote you "his point is that the beliefs and practices disrupt modern western categories of identity like religion". Indeed we all agree to that! However, this article does not speak about the issue of identity, it speaks to one aspect of the Jewish identity called "Judaism". Quoting Boyarin is indeed worthy in an article talking about the Jewish identity, i.e. the article "Jew". You say the "category of religion is disrupted". Disrupted concerning what? Obviously disrupted concerning saying that religion is a category of identity. This is indeed an interesting POV, however this article discusses a belief system, and that is all! It does not address whether that belief system creates an identity. Again, please simply take the Boyarin quote and put it in the article Jew. Shykee 02:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)shykee

I said I would take you in good faith, and asked if you were being argumentative. You replied by being argumentative, so now there is no need to answer in good faith. You do not understand Boyarin and are trying to push a point of view. Boyarin is making a comment about judaism, that it does not easily fit into modern western notions of religion. this is a relavant and important point of view. Feel free to add opposing views. Don't delete a view that you don't like or understand. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This is not your classroom and personal attacks and speculations about my "good faith" are not acceptable. Again I must ask you to refrain from unwarranted hyperbole. I will again quote you "Boyarin is making a comment about judaism, that it does not easily fit into modern western notions of religion." If the word Judaism refers to a system of practices and beliefs, than you are, excuse the expression, dead wrong. Boyarin's theory is applicable to people and what they actually do and what actually defines them. A system of thought and practices stands outside of this! It is a self-defined system regardless of how people in practice use it or whether it defines them. Hence the extremely logical suggestion to move the comment to an article that does speak to the ever-changing, constantly metamorphous state of the frail thing we call human beings! Again, please refrain from unwarranted hyperbole. Thanks, Shykee 03:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)shykee

By the way, I know how frustrating it is to discuss something with someone who does not understand your POV. I will summarize our views and juxtapose them. I have no doubt you will correct me if I misrepresent your view.

Here is the Boyarin quote:

"Jewishness disrupts the very categories of identity, because it is not national, not genealogical,

not religious, but all of these, in dialectical tension."

User:Slrubenstein- Boyarin is saying that the concept of Jewishness (i.e. Judaism) says that those categories (race, religion etc.) are in themselves disrupted and each of those things cannot be well defined on their own merits. According to this, the words "categories of identity" are merely the identifier of the subsequent things (race etc.).

User:shykee,Avi,Shirahadasha- Boyarin is saying that the concept of Jewishness (i.e. the identity of being Jewish) disrupts using things such as race or religion as an identity. They are disrupted as and only as using them as catagories of identity for Jewishness. Here, the words "categories of identity" means that they are disrupted concerning categories of identity.

I venture a suggestion: Refer editors you respect, or even people in your personal life, to this talk page and ask them their opinion. Is Boyarin remotely saying, as you understand (and I quote you) "it is deeply problematic to call Judaism a religion". Or is he obviously and clearly saying that the concept of Jewishness disrupts using the religion alone, or the race alone etc. to categorize the Jewish identity Shykee 18:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)shykee

Well, whether or not it belongs, it certainly doesn't belong in the lead. I've moved it to a relevant place, and cleaned it up (for example, Wikipedia articles should not refer to Wikipedia, nor should they make assertions about what "most Western Westerners" believe. Now, why should the article have a whole section devoted to the views of Daniel Boyarin? Is he that important a figure in Judaism? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The book referenced is actually available free on-line from UCpress, and I have wikilinked and sourced appropriately. I still believe its primary place is in Jew; however, I agree with Jay that it is less blatant where it is now. -- Avi 04:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no objections to putting the paragraph where Jayjg put it, although I put it as the lead to the section. I also added some more stuff to clarify Boyarin's position. I hope we have achieved a stable compromise - I am satisfied. I do hope people understand where i am coming from though. The fact that according to jewish law, one born of a Jewish mother is Jewish; that jewish law includes both ritual law and tort law and that judaism itself does not claim that the former is religious and the latter is secular, means that if we call judaism a religion it is a religion in a very different sense than Christianity is (I am not trying to privilege Christianity, I bring this up because most of Wikipedia's readers are Christian or grew up in a Christian culture). Another thing motivating me is that there is no word for Judaism in the Tanakh or Talmud. If the idea of Judaism only came into being around the Enlightenment (i know of no pre-enlightenment evidence for the word Judaism, but could be wrong - I would love others to educate me. I certainly know of no pre-medeival (say, pre-Rambam) notion of "Judaism"), then it seems to me we have a choice: either say judaism didn't exist until that time (1100s? 1500s? 1700s?) - or, explain that "Judaism" encompasses something much bigger and more complex than others might think. Below, Tomer makes a point about how Reform Jews were modifying Judaism and scolding me for seeming to forget that. I never forgot that. But it seems to me that people who identify Judaism as solely a religion are doing the same thing, christianizing it in a way. 12:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)