Jump to content

Talk:Rabbi/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Reb

The article currently says: "Hasidim and Haredim will therefore prefer using Hebrew names for rabbinic titles based on older traditions, such as ... or often just plain Reb which is a shortened form of rebbe that can be used by, or applied to, any Jewish male as the situation applies".

As far as I know, Reb is not a shortening of Rebbe at all. Reb is the masculine title of respect in Yiddish, equivilent to "Mr." in English. It carries no conotation of being a Rebbe, a Rabbi, a Rav or being learned in any way. Maybe it began as being a shortening of Rebbe or Rabbi (I have no idea if it did or not) but it certainly does not mean that today. Does anyone else know about the meaning of the term "Reb"? Michael.passman 17:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I've read somewhere (can't remember where) that the custom of using the title "rabbi" or "reb" for all men began during the schism with the Karaites, and it meant that the man identified as a Rabbanite, even if he personally was unlearned. Sorry, no source, so this doesn't go in the article. -- Zsero (talk) 23:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitions

" It is safe to say that the title of "rabbi" is probably more of a "credential" or title, not a particular "job"."

This sentence is perfect for clearing basic misunderstandings of the term. It should be featured more prominantly at the beginning of the article.

"While rabbis are generally thought of as clergy, equivalent to priests or ministers in Christian denominations, in fact the role is quite different." -- On the other hand, I believe it would be accurate to say that the role of rabbi and (Muslim) imam are similar. Yes? No? Thanks for input.

Orthodox smicha is a test in halacha. That is all. There is no requirement that it include Tanach, Jewish philosophy, Talmud, or anything else. It's just shabbat, nida, and issur ve-heter (the three components of the test). Danny (been there, done that)

The test itself may not include Talmud, but the course of study does include huge amounts of Mishnah, Talmud, and responsa, right? I wasn't referring to the final test itself, but rather to the program of study. Do most Orthodox synagogues not require the study of classic rabbinic philosophical works? I would be willing to believe this, but I would find it ironic and Reform and Conservative rabbis seem to have a more demanding array of subjects to study than Orthodox Jews. I know that at the Jewish Theological Seminary, the Conservative movement's main rabbinic seminary, there is a wide array of Judaica subjects that all rabbinic students there must master. I was under the impression that this was true also at Yeshiva University (although YU may not be representative of most Yeshivas in the last 500 years!) RK

YU is not representative. I've known plenty of people with "smicha" who can't learn a page of Talmud (blatt gemara). I also have a cousin going for smicha now, who is excited by his program because it requires them to read all of Tanach. In terms of a well-rounded Judaic studies program, JTS is certainly far ahead of most yeshivot (though this may come at the expense of halachah, which is the core/sole requirement Orthodox smichas. Danny

Different Yeshivos have different requirements. I have semicha (yoreh yoreh) from more than one institution (both Haredi) and while they shared Basar B'Chalav, Ta'aroves, and Niddah; one included Shchita and Melicha while the other required Aveilus and Shabbos. Avi 08:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


Rav

A topic that deserves a mention on this page is the word "Rav". In Israel especially one hears all the time of "Rav so-and-so" and much less frequently of "Rabbi so-and-so". I think the words are more or less interchangable but is that true everywhere? -- zero 15:55, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Rav is generally used for somebody who is an expert in Jewish law, while Rabbi generally implies a lesser degree of expertise in Jewish law. It is also used generally for teachers of Jewish religious subjects who would not ever be called a Rav. Ezra Wax 04:42, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Semicha

I take issue with the term 'laying on of hands' as Semicha is more than laying on of hands. The giver of Semicha, up till the time of the talmud when true semicha was no longer able to be given, placed his full weight on the recipient. Ezra Wax 04:42, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Um, no he didn't. It didn't even involve an actual laying on of hands; "semicha" was metaphorical. All it involved was a court bestowing on the recipient the title "ribbi", and informing him that he was now entitled to sit on a court. The recipient doesn't even need to be present at the ceremony; he can be ordained in absentia, and then informed by letter of his new status. See Rambam Sanhedrin 4:3,6. (Yeah, I know this comment is nearly 3 years old.) Zsero 08:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete section?

Should we delete the section on becoming a rabbi, and just give a link to the semicha article? The semicha article covers everything on this topic. RK 20:33, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

No, because semicha only deals with the orthodox requirements. I would personally favour keeping the section here, but linking clearly to the semicha page. JFW | T@lk 20:46, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Oh, I hadn't seen what you did to semicha. I personally don't really care if you delete the paragraph. Just say something like: "See main article: semicha" and then a very brief summary of that article. JFW | T@lk 21:01, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Section just added

I've removed a section just added to the article, as follows:

Constitute a sort of nobility of the Jews, and it is the first object of each parent that his sons shall, if possible, attain it. When, therefore, a boy displays a peculiarly acute mind and studious habits, he is placed before the twelve folio volumes of the Talmud, and its legion of commentaries and epitomes, which he is made to pore over with an intenseness which engrosses his faculties entirely, and often leaves him in mind, and occasionally in body, fit for nothing else; and so vigilant and jealous a discipline is exercised so to fence him round as to secure his being exclusively Talmudical, and destitute of every other learning and knowledge whatever, that one individual has lately met with three young men, educated as rabbis, who were born and lived to manhood in the middle of Poland, and yet knew not one word of its language. To speak Polish on the Sabbath is to profane it—so say the orthodox Polish Jews. If at the age of fourteen or fifteen years, or still earlier, (for the Jew ceases to be a minor when thirteen years old,) this Talmudical student realizes the hopes of his childhood, he becomes an object of research among the wealthy Jews, who are anxious that their daughters shall attain the honour of becoming the brides of these embryo santons; and often, when he is thus young, and his bride still younger, the marriage is completed.

It appears to be some sort of outside view from 1828;[1] it hardly seems relevant now. Jayjg (talk) 20:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I added stuff yesterday and now its gone and there isn't even any trace in the history! What's up?

Please try again, then report it at the village pump. JFW | T@lk 12:56, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Should we merge this with the semicha article?

I re-read this article and the semicha article. Neither are very long. It looks to me like we could merge them. Or perhaps move some of the information from their to here. Does anyone think that this would be a good idea, or should we continue to keep them separate. RK 02:40, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • I vote to keep them separate because each has its own history and will have much material added to it eventually. Classical semicha from the days of Moses is something unique. Biblical semicha has been discontinued. Today's semichas are "stop-gap qualifications" that are mostly powerless documents. Many Talmudic scholars, Rosh yeshivas and Halakhists, called and known as rabbis do NOT have, nor do they aspire to obtain and hold semicha at all. There is in fact a great prejudice against conventional "semichas" in the Haredi Judaism world and many Haredi rabbis and rebbes do NOT have a formal "semicha" (they think today's "semichas" are a big joke!) Basically it is NOT necessary to have "semicha" in order to be a "rabbi". Thus the two subjects and the articles must remain apart. IZAK 04:54, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree with IZAK, they are separate topics. Jayjg (talk) 17:24, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Agree with IZAK and Jay: Semicha is in fact not exclusively bound to the question of who is a rabbi/ḥakham, but also, e.g., to procedures for sacrifice in the Temple. I think each article should be expanded, rather than being merged with the other. -- Olve 19:32, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok. The article on Semicha currently, then, discusses at least two separate topics. It discusses procedures for sacrifice, and the ancient form of rabbinic semicha that we no longer have. Yet it also discussed modern day rabbinical ordination in Orthodox and non-Orthodox Judaism; that seems more appropriate for this article. What about moving this latter section on modern day rabbis (in Semicha) to this Rabbi article. RK 20:19, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

  • RK: Please take note that Semicha in sacrifices is now an independent seperate article by the way, which should further clarfy things. Again, forget about "merging" any parts of the Rabbi article with the Semicha more than you have to. In any case, both the Semicha article and the Rabbi article do cross-reference each other on the points you mention. Read the articles carefully again and you will see that what you propose is not needed and would merely be redundant and confusing (and may appear to run towards some sort of anti-Haredi POV conclusions perhaps.)IZAK 05:51, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Please stop your paranoid complaints. No one is attacking Haredi Jews. We are talking about which paragraphs of an article to merge. RK
  • RK:To call someone "paranoid" is not nice, neither on Wikipedia nor anywhere else. I know we were talking about "paragraphs of an article", but it was the contents of those paragraphs that were under discussion. And we obviously don't just "talk about paragraphs" on Wikipedia it's ALWAYS wedded to contents. Gevalt! IZAK 04:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Izak's historical revisionism

In an edit line to the article, Izak writes:

Revert to last version by Everyking because RK has inserted one-side argumenst to bolster Conservative Judaism POV of what "is" and "is not" happening in the world of Orthodox Judaism)

Izak, please stop your ad homenim attacks against me! The facts stated in my edit of the article are true, and they are sourced and references. Please read the articles in the references section. (They have nothing to do with Conservative Judaism!) You have no right to use this encyclopedia to spew anger at your fellow Orthodox Jews. For those non-Jews following this discussion, please be aware that in much of Orthodox Judaism it is considered a gross insult to label someone "Conservative", "reform", or "non-Orthodox". It fact, it can lead to excommunication, at least in theory. Izak's use of these terms against those he dislikes is a religious personal attack, which is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy.

Izak has serious differences with Orthodox Jews who have views that differ from his own. Fine, but so what? Is he claiming that there are Orthodox authorities who view these many changes within Orthodoxy as heretical and/or wrong? Then he must follow Wikipedia official policy of citing sources, and presenting them in accord with our NPOV policy. Yet instead of citing sources and following NPOV, he merely inserts polemics. That is not good encyclopedia writing. RK

In the end, Izak's claims are false. While he pretends that the changes in the role of women within Orthodoxy is "Conservative" and "Modern Orthodox", in fact this change is occuring within many segements of Orthodox Judaism, including those to the theological right of "Modern Orthodoxy". For instance, the rabbinic court advocates are accepted as valid by Haredi Jews in Israel - i.e. by "Ultra-Orthodox Jews". One is astonished to learn that in Iaak's view, these "ultra-Orthodox Jews" are pushing a non-Orthodox agenda.

What is espeically bizarre is the way that Izak is attacking things that I never wrote. For some odd reason he sees sentences in the article claiming that Orthodox Judaism is becoming the same as non-Orthodox Judaism in regards to ordainding women as rabbis. Yet no such sentiments exist in this article. In fact, I wrote the exact opposite of what Izak imagines is in the article:

Two Israeli Orthodox women are known to have been ordained as rabbis by Orthodox male rabbis, and they have some small amount of support from male peers. However, the overwhelming majority of Orthodox rabbis and laypeople do not view these ordinations as valid.

So why is Izak so angry? Apparently, the mere statement of fact is not enough. He wants the article to include a polemic against all Orthodox Jews who dare disgaree with him, but that is just not right. RK 02:03, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Stop the smokescreen/s

RK for heaven's sake man, get a grip on yourself, look at your own words against me and I daresay that it constitutes a far-reaching personal attack (and remember "two wrongs don't make a right".) Your own long record of personal attacks against Wikipedia users is horrendous, others have even tracked it, see User:MyRedDice/Wikipedians attacked by RK. Now, to get back to the point of the REAL issues here...First of all, you keep mentioning two mysterious females that were "ordained" as "Orthodox" rabbis, well who the heck are they if you think they are such Earth-shattering "samples" of a new breed of "Orthodox" rabbis? Secondly, to write the obvious does not need a "citation", such as when we say point blank THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FEMALE RABBI IN ORTHODOX JUDAISM. That is a truism that is self-evident and that is as clear as daylight and that everybody knows is obvious (of course, you could fool someone who knows little or zero about this subject by claiming your "citations" are impressive, but they are not) because NOT A SINGLE LEADING ORTHODOX RABBINIC AUTHORITY HAS EVER SAID THAT THERE MUST BE, OR SHOULD BE, LADY RABBIS, in fact they are basically universally opposed to even the thought of the mention of the subject, (everybody who knows Orthodox Judaism well knows this, except you it seems.) It would be like requiring a citation that the "sun shines in the day" and "the moon is in the night sky". Thirdly, female to'anot are not and will not ever be Orthodox "rabbis", even if they would have IQs of 150, could recite the Talmud backwards, and knew the Shulkhan Arukh by heart. Furthermore, to call them "clergy" does NOT help you any, as the word "clergy" is alien to Judaism (it's better suited for Christians who know what it means). So it's not a case of knowledge, as Jewish women, not just rabbis' wives, have always valued Torah knowledge and have learnt it themslves and encouraged their sons to become Torah scholars and their well-versed daughters to study it and to marry Torah learning husbands. This has always been true in Jewish history. Finally, who gives you the right to decide what is the norm in the world of Orthodox Judaism? This is an open-ended discussion and you have no right to assert its direction by pretending to represent some sort of "moral high ground". (Note: Due to the Passsover season now almost upon us, let us wait and see what some other well-learned contributors such as User:Jayjg and User:Jfdwolff, who DO know something about this subject, have to say when they get around to it.) Thank you. IZAK 07:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Izak, you are hysterical, and need to take a break. You are bizarrely attacking statements that I simply never made. Also, I find it sad that you imagine that I personally have anything to do with any of this. You say "who gives you the right to decide what is the norm in the world of Orthodox Judaism." Um, I wasn't quoted in any of these articles! (Article, by the way, that I note you censored, in clear violation of Wikipedia policy.) Please read these articles. None of the Orthodox rabbi cited within is me! Your anger at many of your fellow Orthodox Jews is your right, but don't attack the messenger. We may not censor this article to only allow POVs that you agree with. In any case, in accord with the good-faith policy of Wikipedia NPOV, I am consciously writing for the opposition, including many Orthodox POVs, not just one. You would do well to do the same. RK 13:23, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Female Orthodox rabbis?

I've tried to understand the disagreement between User:RK and User:IZAK on these pages and am unclear what its essence is. This is not a topic I know much about, but it seems to me that there is agreement on certain crucial facts:

  • The halachic case for or against ordination of women requires consideration of a wide range of factors. I don't know the extent to which the issue has been discussed and decided among leading Orthodox rabbis, but it may be worthwhile outlining the state of the issue.
  • Nobody is saying that women can't be rabbis because they're inferior in any way.
  • Nobody is saying that women have no role to play in what I would - for lack of a better term - call a "rabbinic process." They may be consulted on specific issues and are obliged to learn.
  • I don't know if the account of two female Orthodox rabbis can be verified; even if it is true, they are certainly avoiding publicity.

I don't know, for example, if the issue is something as absolute whether women are eligible or ineligible for ordination, or if it's one of those things that are halachically possible but practically inconceivable. Similarly, I don't know whether the Orthodox community views the issue as a non-starter because there are other things they'd rather worry about. It might also be worthwhile discussing the role of the rebbetzin in Orthodox communities - Chaya Schneerson is certainly revered within the Lubavitch community, as an example.--Leifern 03:32, 2005 Apr 21 (UTC)

RK has the habit of finding controversial fringe issues and blowing them up to tremendous proportions.
The vast majority of Orthodoxy, both Haredi and Modern-Orthodox, does not support female rabbis. Women can fill a leadership role in different ways, and frequently do.
If the subject needs to be discussed at all, a few lines are enough, with the obvious disclaimer that only the extreme left wing of Modern Orthodoxy supports female rabbinate. I do not like RK's new version at all. JFW | T@lk 09:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)


JFW, this is a major issue issue in Israeli and American Orthodox Judaism. No one well read on this topic could ever present it as "fringe", nor should one falsely accuse me of blowing up some minor discussion. It is discussed in Orthodox Yeshivas, in the American Jewish press, the Israeli Jewish press, and the result is that even some Haredi rabbis accept the Toanot as valid. RK 12:28, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
I agree. It is yet another attempt to take what is at best a (currently unverified) tiny fringe phenomenon in Orthodoxy and blow it up so that it dominates the article. Not surprisingly, this tiny left-wing fringe in Orthodoxy also happens to be fairly closely aligned with the Conservative movement's view. Jayjg (talk) 17:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
JayJG, again, please stop your personal attacks against me and against Orthodox Jews that do not share your beliefs. For those who don't understand why JayJG's statement above is inappropriate, know that it is considered an ad homenim attack in much of the Orthodox Jewish community to label a fellow Orthodox Jew's view as "Conservative" or "non-Orthodox." JayJG obviously disapproves of the many Orthodox Jews who accept such developments within Orthodoxy, and is attempting to demean them by implying that they are not really Orthodox. While he has the right to have this view, this encyclopedia is not the place to engage in such religious polemics. RK
It would be grossly incorrect to claim that the growing number of Orthodox Jews accepting these changes is only a "tiny fring aligned with the Conservative movement." That kind of rhetoric may make some religious extremists feel happy, but there is little truth to the charge. Please use this Talk page for its sole intended purpose: For discussion of how to improve this article. Read the sources I offered, and if you question any fact, please bring your own sources. Please desist in your religious polemics against Orthodox Jews who happen to have views that differ from your own. RK 12:37, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Both of you are missing the point: Neither of you responded to the specific points that I made, above. The problem is not in the discussion of facts. The problem is that Izak is still using this article to pontificate and write POV essays. In fact, in all other articles Izak's POV essay writing is precisely the sort of thing that JayJG works so hard to stop, as it clearly violates our NPOV policy. All I am asking is that we just describe the facts and cite sources in accord with NPOV. But Izak isn't adding any facts; he is just venting anger. RK 12:28, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

In the comment line to one of his recent edits, Izak writes Please stop making "me" the issue here and stick to the topics. "To'anot" no matter how smart, are NOT "Rabbis" .To use "clergy" inaccurate This claim takes my breath away, as I obviously wrote no such thing. In fact, I wrote the very opposite. I specifically wrote that (a) Orthodox Judaism does not accept women as rabbis, (b) that Toanot are not rabbis, and (C) that Orthodox Jews consider these clergy-like roles, and not rabbinical clergy. So what does Izak do? He pretends that I wrote the exact opposite, and the rewrites the entire section of the article to attack words that are not even there! This is not professional or even in accord with Wikipedia policy. In fact, I have a hard time parsing it as rational. RK

I am now suggesting, and will soon initiate, this solution: we delete the paragraph on the possibility of female Orthodox rabbis altogether, and create a separate section on female rabbis in general, outlining the various movements' position on the practice. I will make an effort to phrase the Orthodox position in a way that is accurate and neutral, though I'm sure both RK and Izak will want to weigh in. We'll see if that makes things worse or better. --Leifern 12:51, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
Just to clarify, are you suggesting moving this section to an entirely new article, and only briefly describe this topic within this main article? I would be fine with that. Izak, I am afraid, would not be fine with anything. Please read his comments: He is attacking statements not in the article, is censoring the article by deleting entire sections (the entire Reference section), and is claiming that I personally am responsible for all these changes in Orthodoxy. I seriously doubt that he has actually read any of the articles in the references section, and is unfamiliar with the issue. RK 13:27, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
My idea is that we set up a separate section within the article on the issue of women and rabbis. --Leifern 13:32, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup?

This is really interesting reading, but I suspect that it makes more sense to someone who already knows a bit about the topic than someone who wants to learn about it. I don't have time to do anything about this before Pesach, but perhaps we can reduce some of the conflict and make this more readable by restructuring the article. I'll propose some ideas next week. In the meantime, I'll wish everyone a sweet and kosher Passover. --Leifern 14:11, 2005 Apr 22 (UTC)

Is marriage a requirement for rabbi ?

Does one have to get married before one can become a rabbi ?

No, but most people seem to think that it's preferable if they are. --Leifern 15:48, 2005 Apr 26 (UTC)


No mention of Talmid [דימלת] or the Rabbi’s Talmidim [םידימלת]

Is this by design? Rgordey 23:12, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Sacred Myth Versus History

"Members of the Sanhedrin all had to received their semicha ("ordination" derived in an uninterrupted line of transmission from Moses) yet they were more frequently referred to as judges (dayanim) akin to the Shoftim or "Judges" as in the Book of Judges, rather than rabbis."

Rabbis didn't exist, in any conventional sense, during the period of the Tanakh (roughly 1500 BCE to 150 BCE). From Pirkei Avot 1:1 we get a pseudo-history of the passing down of authority through the ages. I understand Pirkei Avot as part of what I might call "sacred history" which is different from history. "Sacred history" isn't any less "true" or valuable for an adherent of the tradition or even someone outside the tradition. But I don't think "sacred history" is what the Wikipedia is meant to provide. I'm really new to this endeavor, so I'm reticent to jump in with changes; but I do want to get the conversation going here. Sam* 18:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

"He who learns from his fellowman a single chapter, a single halakha, a single verse, a single Torah statement, or even a single letter, must treat him with honor. For so we find with David King of Israel, who learned nothing from Ahitophel except two things, yet called him his teacher (in Hebrew: rabbo -- meaning his "rabbi"), his guide, his intimate, as it is said: 'You are a man of my measure, my guide, my intimate' (Psalms 55:14). One can derive from this the following: If David King of Israel who learned nothing from Ahitophel except for two things, called him his teacher (i.e. rabbo -- his "rabbi"), his guide, his intimate, one who learns from his fellowman a single chapter, a single halakha, a single verse, a single statement, or even a single letter, how much more must he treat him with honor. And honor is due only for Torah, as it is said: 'The wise shall inherit honor' (Proverbs 3:35), 'and the perfect shall inherit good' (Proverbs 28:10). And only Torah is truly good, as it is said: 'I have given you a good teaching, do not forsake My Torah' (Psalms 128:2). (Ethics of the Fathers 6:3)"

This quote is totally out of place. Is its purpose to show that the leaders, like King David, of earlier periods played similar roles in society as rabbis did later, or they had similar kinds of authority? Maybe the section should be renamed, "Antecedents to the Rabbis." I still don't think that quote, however, is illustrative of anything useful here. This quote is more about the role of teaching in the bonding of human relationships than it is about the role of rabbis or their antecedents. Sam* 18:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, Orthodox Jews still believe that the concept of "Rabbi" originated with Moses, who is called "Moshe Rabbeinu" (Moses, our Rabbi). The quote from Avot 1:1 needs to remain, perhaps introduced with "According to the Orthodox POV"). I agree that Avot 6:3 has little to do with this article. JFW | T@lk 21:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• I think adding, "According to the Orthodox POV" would be great. Avot 1:1 is not quoted in the article at all. I made the connection here in the "Talk" to that. I think by saying something like, "Many Orthodox Jews take Avot 1:1 literally and therefore base the evolution of rabbis back to Moses." And then quote the actual Avot 1:1 text. I still think the title "Antecedents to the Rabbis" is much better because the term "rabbi" appears nowhere in the Tanakh. Sam* 22:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Sam: One cannot adds words "orthodox POV" because the word "Orthodox" was invented by Reform Jews in Germany (Deutschland !!!) who hate/d the "ol-fashioned" so-called "Orthodox". IZAK 12:24, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Sam: I was the one who worked on, and inserted, this classic and very reliable "quote" into the article, and the point of it was to find a RELIABLE written source where the word "rabbi" is mentioned --because you are correct it's not mentioned in the Tanakh since the leaders of those times were Judges, Kings, Priests, and Prophets, but they performed functions that "in essence" where what rabbis since the demise of Judges/Kings/Priests/Prophets are supposed to have done and should be doing: Being the Torah leaders of the Jewish people. It's a continuum of Jewish leadership (and we should not look to Christian "clergy" as examples, because it's the other way around historically: Judaism taught the gentiles and not the other way around). However, by calling this reference a "myth", albeit a "sacred myth", you are revealing your own anti-Orthodox POV, so choose your words with caution. The source for the quote is clearly cited at its end where it belongs as "(Ethics of the Fathers 6:3)" and it's hard to understand why it bothers you so much that a true primary source that has been around for about two thousand years is quoted. The point of it is that it's an early example of the word rabbo -- his "rabbi" inserted by the rabbinic sages of the Mishnah themsleves into the text of the Mishnah proper, revealing a very early CONCEPTUALIZATION of the notion, and expression of the WORD "Rabbi" as viewed and expressed by the early rabbinic masters themselves. It's not "about the role of teaching in the bonding of human relationships" (blah, blah, blah) as such, although it overlaps with that subject -- because what, after all, are rabbis supposed to be if not TEACHERS and educators of Torah, Talmud, and Halakha? (Private aside: Yea, I know, Reform rabbits talk about "human ethics" all day and all night long and ignore the fact that their flock is not listening to them. Now that last comment IS my POV but as you may notice, I will never stick that into an article, so don't get confused by what you may believe to be true with what is actually true.) Shabbat Shalom Sam*! IZAK 12:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

That section is totally out of place in this article. That subject is relevant to the following existing article: Role of women in Judaism. I'm new to Wikipedia and am hesitant to delete. What do others think? Sam* 02:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Be bold. As long as you explain why you are moving it few people will disagree with you. At the same time, please consider that something needs to be mentioned about women in non-Rabbinic leadership roles. JFW | T@lk 08:31, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Sam: Firstly, you should not be too bold at this stage, rather look and learn first. Secondly, there were a number of people who fought hard and long to insert this section here and they might have a fit if you just take it out. Thirdly, there will always be an overlap between subjects, and there are various ways to create that connection, sometimes it's by subject-matter in the article, sometimes it's by internal wikilinks, sometimes its by "see also", or by "external links" that can double as citations. So be carefull whatever you do , especially in a volatile subject such as this that will get the attention of others. IZAK 11:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Orthodox vs Conservative rabbinical educations

I can't say that I've studied this issue in much detail, but it seems to me that the key distinction between Orthodox, haredi, and Conservative rabbinical education is related to some superficially subtle but nevertheless important distinctions. One is a distinction between (for lack of a better term) the yeshiva and university format; point of departure (singular Talmud vs. broader sources); and perhaps, most complicated, the basis for making halachic determinations. I think that saying that one has more or less of one or the other is a bit misleading - Orthodox rabbis (particularly among the haredi) often take on great pastoral duties; and Conservative rabbis certainly are educated in how to conduct halachic deliberations. --Leifern 17:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Conservative recognition of Progressive marriages and conversions

"Often, Conservative Rabbis do not recognize Reform and Reconstructionist marriages and conversions." Do we have a citation on this? I've never heard of a Progressive marriage not being considered valid by a Conservative rabbi (which would be very odd given the deference Conservatives show to civil divorce law), and I can cite sources from reputable Conservative halachic authorities (like the Chancellor of JTS) that Progressive conversions are to be considered valid if done with proper Bet Din, mikveh, and bris. I think the CJLS has spoken on that as well, but I'm hesitant to edit this without consultation. --Savant1984 01:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Savant, could you please define your use of the word "Progressive"? I recall it being the UK equivalent of the US's "Conservative", in which case Conservative might very well accept Progressive, while still rejecting Reform and Reconstructionist.--Keeves 04:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
"Progressive" in the international sense, as in the World Union of Progressive Judaism. The Reform, Liberal, Progressive, and Reconstructionist movements (of the US, UK, Europe, et al.) are all "Progressive" in the international nomenclature. In the UK, the Masorti movement is the sister of the US Conservative movement ("Masorti" is used, I believe, everywhere outside the US). Progressive/Liberal is the wing of the international Progressive movement in the UK more closely resembling American Reform, while UK Reform is considerably more traditional. --Savant1984 00:48, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification! --Keeves 03:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I know about 30 Conservative rabbis and I don't know of one who doesn't accept Reform and Reconstructionist marriages and conversions. I've changed the language there, it now reads something like "Most Conservative rabbis accept Ref and Recon marriages and conversions, some do not." Sam* 04:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


I think that's pretty good for the most part, though I think that it's more than just coincidence that Conservative rabbis tend to respect Progressive conversions. From the material I've read, it's a pretty well-established convention as long as they're done halachically (i.e., mikveh and bris with legitimative bet din). I think our language should reflect that here. (Progressive Jews claiming Jewish status under the one-parent descent resolution are a different case, of course.) I'm still not sure what "recognising" a Progressive marriage means, though. As long as two Jews were there to see the man give a ring to the woman, the couple could've had it done by a judge (or, for that matter, a minister or imam) and it would be a halachic marriage, as I understand the law on this point. --Savant1984 22:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

"rabbi" is not capitalized unless it is a proper noun

I've gone and lower cased some capitalized "Rabbis" and also some capitalized "Movements" when they shouldn't have been. My friend Rabbi Joe Smith is capitalized. A bunch of Reform rabbis are not, unless they are members of a band maybe, "Reform Rabbis Who Rap" or something like that :) Sam* 05:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Page needs more non-Orthodox information and links

While in general the page is well-done, it seems a bit heavily slanted towards Orthodoxy. Reform and Reconstructionist are treated as if they are almost identical movements. The section on women in the rabbinate is almost all about why women can't be rabbis in the Orthodox world rather than how women are rabbis in the rest of American Judaism (I added a sentence to this in a quick edit). The links at the end have a huge list of resources on women in Orthodoxy (as does the page on the Role of women in Judaism. I have no real objection to those things being here, but approrpiate resources and information on Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist, etc. Judaism should also be present. And I agree that it is an overstatement to say that Conservative rabbis don't accept liberal and progressive Jewish marriages and conversions. Sure it happens, but not that often - and the section mentioning patrilineal descent leads us to that issue (although that page is in great need of Jewish info being added). MKaiserman 14:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not split the article into several separate pages: 1 for orthodox, another for reform, etc., to avoid all this confusion and disagreement?Yehoishophot Oliver 06:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Despite differences in movements' ordination programmes, there's still a lot of overlap. Multiple pages would be unnecessarily redundant. Savant1984 13:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Women as rabbis

I restored the section IZAK deleted. It seems well-written and relevant, and since it didn't delete anything by being there, I'm not sure how it "pushes aside" 2000 years of history. Why shouldn't it be in here? --Savant1984 18:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It was not pushed aside, but placed later in the article, as it belongs. It is a much more recent innovation than any of the sections that preceded it. I am restoring IZAK's re-ordering; not deletion. Avi 21:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks Avi. Correct, I did not delete anything about the lady rabbis, I just placed them in better chronological and developmental order.\IZAK 06:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
My mistake. Sorry there. --Savant1984 21:26, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

But be not ye called Rabbi

Where could we mention Matthew 23:8?

Mat 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, [even] Christ; and all ye are brethren.

Why would be want to? How would it be relevant? Jayjg (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

It could conceivably be mentioned as an early witness to the title. In fact, there were some articles by Hershel Shanks on the origin of the term rabbi, and whether its use in Matthew is anachronistic. See here: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=hershel+shanks+rabbi&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Search


Barbara Shack 15:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)The three images of Rabbis which I added are all copyright. Somebody who understands copyright law needs to decide if they can stay.
Barbara Shack 13:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Probably the photos are copyright because people don’t want them used in anti-Semitic ways. They are not anti-Semitic here.

Sam* 03:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC) Don't the Wikipedia rules prohibit the posting of copyrighted photographs? There are many reasons to copyright a photograph. By guessing what the reason is (fear of anti-semitic uses) and then proclaiming this situation doesn't apply to this context is total guess and also completely irrelevant. If it's copyrighted it shouldn't be used here.

Use of word dayan

I'm not sure "dayan" should be redirected to "rabbi". anyone? gevaldik! 16:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. A seperate article would be more appropriate. Perhaps taking some sections out of this one. Bryan 14:02, 22 April —Preceding comment was added at 13:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

A new decision by Rabbis

I have read it on a newspaper article [2] that the Chamber of Rabbis made a new decisive statement which is shortly: "civilian deaths are acceptable in the war conditions." So is this a reflection of NAZIs of 1940s under the name of Israel?(85.99.132.140 09:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC))

Sorry, I can't read Turkish. But this is not the forum for such questions anyway. This is where we discuss what's appropriate for Wikipedia articles. Good luck in your research. --Keeves 21:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
What is the relevance of that off-topic untranslated Islamic Turkish rant to this article? Jtpaladin 00:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a Chamber of Rabbis, and anyways the Geneva Convention permits killing human shields (yes, it really does). But don't let facts get in the way.Cgoldfed 06:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Becoming a rabbi: To have or not to have ordination

There's really nothing in this section that isn't already found earlier in the article, and now it is becoming something of a soapbox. I'd like to delete it entirely, if anyone will second the idea. --Keeves 21:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph starts by raising an interesting point. The highest ideal for Torah study is "lishma" for its own sake. Being a professional rabbi in many ways makes studying "for its own sake" impossible. I think that is an interesting point which could probably fit in elsewhere in the article. But then the paragraph goes in other directions that aren't relevant to the stated section title, and I agree with Keeves at least for the latter part of the paragraph that it should be deleted. Sam* 03:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Formatting Problem Caused by Rabbi Pics

In Safari and Firefox (latest version of both) on a Mac running tiger -- those rabbi pics are causing havoc with the edit links, making them impossible to use for much of the article. I have to click on the "edit this page" link at the top and then search thrugh the whole page to get to where I want to edit. Sam* 03:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. I've removed the images for now. Someone should place one image per section, or so, to even out this mess. -- Wikipedical 22:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
My first reaction was that removing all the pics entirely was going way too far to solve the problem. But then I realized that I don't have Safari or Firefox, so I don't know how bad it was for you, so I really can't judge. So here's and alternate idea: does anyone know how to position the pics horizontally across the screen? --Keeves 03:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The external links are hardly a representative selection. An encyclopedia article should retain an appropriate balance in its selection of links. --Redaktor 21:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What did you have in mind? Do you want to add or delete things, or both? Jtpaladin 00:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I have in mind removing all the adverts for seminaries. --Redaktor 12:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

While I agree the article has a distinct bias that needs addressing, I don't see how removing the various legit seminaries helps things. What is gained by removing the links to each of the movements' main rabbinical seminaries? What would be a more "representative" selection that you'd prefer? JerseyRabbi 13:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Orthodox Judaism has no "main rabbinical seminary". Indeed most orthodox rabbis do not train in a seminary at all.--Redaktor 13:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Understood. But other movements do have main seminary/seminaries. Why should they be removed because (some) Orthodox Jews do not train in seminary? A link to JTS or RRC isn't an "advert", but an acknoledgement that this is where Jews of that denomination are trained to be rabbis. I do not see a reason to remove those links. Of the 12 links currently listed, 1 is Reform, 1 is Conservative, 1 is Reconstructionist, 3 list as Orthodox (although only 1 is centrist Orthodox and there are no ultra-Orthodox listings), 4 are non/trans-denomination and 2 are secular humanist. Based on percentages of Jews in the US, clearly the links do not match up or there would be more Reform and Conservative listings. Is the argument that the absence of ultra-Orthodox seminaries for rabbis removes the value of non-Orthodox seminaries being listed? JerseyRabbi 15:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

What is a secular-humanist rabbi? --Redaktor 18:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, but you can check out the Humanistic Judaism. I am speaking about the major movements - especially Reform and Conservative. I see no reason whatsoever to remove their semanaries from the links. Do you? JerseyRabbi 20:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if no one knows it should be deleted. I also think the list of references about Women in Orthodoxy belongs in an article with that title, not in this article. This article should focus on its topic.

As far as numbers are concerned, only the Yeshiva University link is Orthodox. And percentages of Jews in the US is not the relevant measure. I would measure the perecentage of rabbis in the world.--Redaktor 21:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that the section on Women in Orthodoxy is misplaced here. I have always felt it should be moved. I am still at a loss for your overall point: What is the problem with having HUC and JTS listed as external links in a rabbi article? They are seminaries that ordain rabbis which serve gigantic movements of Jews world-wide. The other seminaries serve varied populations and most of them are well known. That Orthoodoxy is under-represented on this list does not make it a deficient list. It simply represents a different approach to the rabbinate which should be reflected in the article. JerseyRabbi 22:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I certainly have to agree with JerseyRabbi. HUC and JTS in particular are flagship institutions of the modern rabbinate and it'd be downright bizarre not to have links to them here. Certainly we can and ought to add links to noteworthy seminaries and yeshivas that give Orthodox smicha, but that's no reason to delete the links to Progressive and Masorti institutions. Savant1984 02:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

But why do they appear twice, once in the body of the article and again under External Links?--Redaktor 18:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

In the body of the article there're references to their Wikipedia articles. In External Links are the links to their own websites. Savant1984 23:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Shema Yisrael Torah Network

Looking at their entry this looks like an Orthodox group, not a non-denominational one. I have therefore deleted it from this section. Savant1984 03:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Rav means Rabbi in Hebrew: Why have duplicate articles?

The Rav article should be part of this "Rabbi" article. Discussion at Talk:Rav#Rav means Rabbi in Hebrew. Thank you, IZAK 09:56, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Confusing tag

Lots of good content here, but the article doesn't really flow; several sections seem to have been written without regard for other sections; and there's repitition of points. There's some borderline editorial commentary, and I think we should be careful about how we compare and contrast different rabbinical educational programs to stay within NPOV standards.

This is an important article. Many people are confused about what the role of a rabbi is, both traditionally and in contemporary Jewish life. So we owe it to our readers to make this as clear as possible. --Leifern (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Non-standard pronunciation guides

There are various non-standard pronunciation guides in the introduction concerning different pronunciations of "rabbi." It would be helpful if these could be switched to IPA. --N-k, 15:26, 17 January, 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the "rubbee" pronunciation. I can't find that in any dictionary. Maybe someone was trying to convey the Hebrew? kwami (talk) 07:23, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Question

seeing as the source for the claim that yoatzot halacha serve mainly in the charedi community appears to be non-web based, could one of you please tell me exactly what it says. my experiance with yoatzot halacha tells me that they mainly serve in modern orthodox communities so im curious as to what the wording of this article is. thank you. -- g.j.g (talk) 01:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I have taken out this content until the source can be verified, because according to Nishmat, since Haredi rabbis have not given their public approval, it causes me to doubt the accuracy of the claim. shirulashem (talk) 02:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment

Assessment comment: Needs more references and some cleanup. shirulashem (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Pics

This article needs appropriate pics. See Commons:Category:Rabbis. – Quadell (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Recognition of who is a Jew

I removed the following from the page:

"Likewise, the North American Reform rabbinate does not accept the offspring of a Jewish mother and Gentile father to be Jewish unless raised unambiguously as Jews."

I am not a member of a reform rabninate, but this just seems to be a mistake - every denomination would consider a person to be born to a Jewish mother as 100% Jewish. If the Reform rabbinate does have such a policy, please provide a citation.Romabers (talk) 02:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Female rabbis

Is there a title for a female rabbi, like Rabbein maybe? --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't think so. Not in English, anyway. shirulashem (talk) 15:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest insertion

JoeCarter888 (talk · contribs) recently inserted two links here[3] during a spree of adding links to "First Things," a site he edits.[4] This is clearly a conflict of interest and inappropriate use of Wikipedia to promote a website. I removed the links, but Zsero (talk · contribs) finds value in them.[5] I moved the links to the external links section because the references section is reserved for works that were actually used for building the article. My preference is for the links to be removed completely, not only because of their origin but also because they are off topic for this article (Women in Judaism is a separate article). ✤ JonHarder talk 21:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Israeli Rabbi and abortion

This Israeli site: [JP] writes the opinion from Chief Rabbinate of Israel about abortion. In the article, we can read:"There is nothing more important than encouraging births - according to the commentaries - and it is our role to raise the awareness on the subject of abortions," Rabbi Yehudah Deri, a member of the Chief Rabbinical Council, said during the committee hearing. "Women must be aware - many women don't know that the significance of abortion is murder. The information that we distributed was a rabbinic ruling that abortion is murder, the halacha sees a fetus as a living person".

The black letters are mine, not from the article itself.Agre22 (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

Rabbis categories for renaming

Please note the following:

Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

How does one pronounce this thing? Is it pronounced like 'rabbit' with the 't' assumed to be silent? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.251.185 (talk) 08:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

No, it is pronounced like "rabbay" (like "I"). What you suggested is close to the pronunciation of "rebbe", but not precisely. Debresser (talk) 10:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

The word

I have undo Wavelength's removal of the word "The" in the header "The word 'rabbi' " because "Word 'rabbi' " sounds unclear to me. In addition please notice that the cited guideline WP:MOS#Article titles doesn't necessarily apply to headers as well. Debresser (talk) 10:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Knowledgeable about rabbis? Female rabbis? Transgender rabbis?

I am not knowledgeable about Judaism, but I do know that woman aren't allowed to be rabbis.

Can anyone that is knowledgeable about rabbis/Jewish law please comment on the Emily Aviva Kapor wikipedia article? Emily Aviva Kapor is a Jewish transgender male-to-female woman that says she is an ordained rabbi. Is this valid? You can also comment on the talk page Talk:Emily_Aviva_Kapor.

In order to be considered a rabbi in Judaism, what exactly do you have to do?

Articles about Emily Aviva Kapor:

Is Forward a reliable source for wikipedia? Do Jewish people view Forward as a legitimate Jewish magazine?

Thanks! 63.247.160.139 (talk) 07:18, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I can't help you much with your overall enquiry but I can tell you that "woman aren't allowed to be rabbis" is not generally true, only in the more orthodox parts of Judaism. See for example Julia Neuberger, Baroness Neuberger who is generally viewed as a very mainstream figure by many - though not all! - in the UK. Hope this helps a little. DBaK (talk) 08:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
The Forward is indeed a legitimate magazine, which WP considers a reliable source.
As for being considered a rabbi, the bottom line is really whether there are people who consider you to be a rabbi, and worth listening to.
Judaism has various different religious movements that hold to different positions on who can or cannot be a rabbi.
Liberal, Reform and Conservative movements in general see no problem with female rabbis, and their rabbinical colleges, such as Hebrew Union College, the Jewish Theological Seminary of America, and Leo Baeck College in London have been training female rabbis and giving them ordination since the 1970s.
Orthodox and Haredi Judaism do not ordain female rabbis. Hardliners in that movement may in some cases not recognise anyone trained by one of the more liberal movements as a 'rabbi', and may even insist that the more liberal movements are not to be considered Judaism at all. Such as position may be seen as essential to defend faith and tradition; or divisive, intolerant and downright rude -- according to religious outlook.
I don't know much about 'trans' rabbis, but the first article you cite says that they have certainly been accepted and ordained by the Reform and Reconstructionist movements. Ms Kapor's religious preferences appear to be a bit more traditionalist than those movements however.
Being a rabbi because you have been blessed as such by someone who is themselves a rabbi is very traditional -- see our article semicha for a good discussion. But how strong that passing-on of authority is seen depends on how people regard you, and the rabbi that blessed you. (It's not a pre-requisite: there are and have been many orthodox rabbis who do not have a semicha, but who nevertheless through the respect for their personal authority enjoy the recognition of their wider religious communities to decide and to judge.) Jheald (talk) 09:46, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
I think Jheald gave a very nice overview of all the possible views of the question you asked. Debresser (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Quality?

hello. Is there a reason, why this article is so bad? Or is it just lack of interest? If the latter, I may do some editing, eventually, but not, if the substandard quality of the article is the result of POV and worse. With thanks for an explanation, ajnem (talk) 10:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I came to this page to look up the term "rabbi" and its qualifications. This page reads much more like a political pamphlet charting the degree to which female and gays have made it into the ranks. Couldn't that be broken out into its own page? Currently, the page is difficult to read because of the interspersed political messaging. Thomas (talk) 16:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Rabbi. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


This article is only about Judaism, not paganism

I removed this text:

The Kohenet Institute, based at the Isabella Freedman Jewish Retreat Center in Connecticut, offers a two-year course of study to women who are then ordained as Jewish priestesses.[1][2] “Kohenet" is a feminine variation on “kohen," meaning priest.[2] The Kohenet Institute's training involves earth-based spiritual practices that they believe harken back to pre–rabbinic Judaism; a time when, according to Kohenet’s founders, women took on many more (and much more powerful) spiritual leadership roles than are commonly taken by women today.[2] A Jewish priestess may, according to Kohenet, act as a rabbi, but the two roles are not the same.[1]

That group is not Jewish. They offer prayers to Anat, Asherah, Lilith, and other pagan deities. They are even now are quoted, in an approving light, by pagan or witchcraft groups:

Asa West practices Reclaiming Tradition Witchcraft and blends her practice with her Jewish heritage and Secular Buddhism. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/shekhinahcalling/2014/01/19/thoughts-on-the-kohenet-siddur/

They simply are not Jewish in any way, shape or form. RK (talk) 20:13, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Neo-paganism has even been rejected by the Reconstructionist movement. These issues became a public debate in 1986 when the 4 December 1986 issue of the Jewish Advocate in Boston came out with an interview with Jane Litman, then a fourth-year rabbinical student at the RRC, who is quoted as saying that she has been accused of idolatry for making statues of Asherah, a Canaanite goddess, as part of an effort to "dig up women's spiritual practices from the past and see what resonates."

Rosenblatt, a journalist with the Advocate, reported that negative feedback from the original article led to a full-scale inquiry by the faculty of the RRC. The faculty stated unequivocally that it believed the invocation of pagan deities, male or female, to be outside the bounds of Judaism, as it has always been. It similarly considered the use of plastic or pictorial imagery in a devotional context to be regressive rather than progressive in the development of Judaism and saw no place for it within Reconstructionism. - The Jewish Advocate, Boston, 27 March 1987, pp. 66-67.

References

  1. ^ a b http://www.kohenet.org/institute/
  2. ^ a b c emma silvers. "Jewish American Priestess: Kohenet Institute ordains women for a new Jewish world". jweekly.com.

The Kohenet / Hebrew Priestess groups belongs under Semitic neopaganism

In the United States, the notion of historical Israelite or Jewish polytheism has been popularized in the 1960s by Raphael Patai in The Hebrew Goddess, focusing on the cult of female goddesses such as the cult of Asherah in the Solomon's Temple. During the 1970s growth of Neopaganism in the United States, a number of minor Canaanite or Israelite oriented groups emerged, mostly containing syncretistic elements from Western esotericism. Forms of Witchcraft religions inspired by the Semitic milieu, such as Jewitchery, may also be enclosed within the Semitic Neopagan movement. These Witchcraft groups are particularly influenced by Jewish feminism, focusing on the goddess cults of the Israelites. The most notable contemporary Levantine Neopagan group is known as Am Ha Aretz (עם הארץ, lit. "People of the Land", a rabbinical term for uneducated and religiously unobservant Jews), "AmHA" for short, based in Israel. ...Beit Asherah ("House of the Goddess Asherah"), was one of the first Jewish Neopagan groups, founded in the early 1990s by Stephanie Fox, Steven Posch, and Magenta Griffiths. Magenta Griffiths is High Priestess of the Beit Asherah coven.. See Semitic neopaganism RK (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you merge this into the section above? It seems to me these two sections are about the same ting. Debresser (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Two minor comments on this article

  • The second sentence gives a literal meaning for "rav" but there is no hint in the lead paragraph of why "rav" is mentioned at all. It should be stated that "rav" is a common Hebrew variant of "rabbi". Zerotalk 08:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Seeing someone called "rav" doesn't necessarily mean they are a rabbi. It is also common as a title of respect for any man. For example a death notice for a man in an Israeli newspaper will very often call him "harav". I think I remember this usage being mentioned on Wikipedia but now I can't find it. I think it should be mentioned on this page. Zerotalk 08:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Your second statement is simply false. When Other Legends Are Forgotten (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Zero. "reb" or even "harav" or a similar abbreviation are often used to like the word "sir" or "mister" in English. Debresser (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Cantors

What's the relevance of this article discussing them so often (20 mentions I can spot)? It's just muddying the waters. --Dweller (talk) 13:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Cantors are not discussed per se. It is always "rabbis and cantors", or variations thereof. Debresser (talk) 21:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but why. They're not rabbis, so it's confusing. Strawman: the article wouldn't discuss "rabbis and cohanim". --Dweller (talk) 07:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
They go together. I personally don't find it confusing, because it is done over the board. Debresser (talk) 11:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Horse and carriage go together too, but why confuse people about which is which? You'd just have a small section in "Horse" that deals with its overlap with "carriage" and vice-versa. --Dweller (talk) 13:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Major movements

@63.116.31.198: apart form the fact that you should certainly stop WP:Edit warring, your explanation that the given source lists "three of the four major Jewish religious movements" is your own synthesis of separate things that the source lists, becoming original research on what the major movements are (which is not in turn supported by the source itself). My "ignorance" does not have any bearing on this issue. Please mind Wikipedia policies and guidelines when editing. LjL (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you LjL for agreeing with my reverts here. I would like to add that we are facing what I think are IP socks. Debresser (talk) 13:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I have not edited this article (as I know zilch about Rabbis), so you can take my objective opinion that the above IP is another sock of a lurking, POV, experienced named account. This analysis seems to confirm it. At least one of these IP has been [hounding] me, too ;). Zezen (talk) 22:21, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Lack of references in article

Can you please explain this revert Debresser? When I added the refimprove tag to this article earlier, you reverted it, and said in the edit description that "This article has 62 references. If you think any statement is lacking a reference, tag it alone with {{Citation needed}}". While I disagreed, as this article has a number of sections without references, I went ahead and added the citation needed template to the sentences in this article that are unreferenced. You have now reverted a second time, with the explanation that "Don't add tens of templates, add one." There's no policy against having both citation needed tags and refimprove tag. It also shows me your original revert was not in good faith. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't throw good faith accusations around before you receive my answer. That is a bad faith assumption!
It is simple. Both things are not correct. 1. You can't tag an article with 47 (!) "Citation needed" templates. That is simply not normal. Especially in an article that already has 62 references. You should only tag statements that really need a source. 2. Adding the "Refimprove" template to an article that already has 62 references is also strange, and unhelpfully unspecific.
What you should do, and what I had in mind from the beginning that you should do (which disproves your bad faith accusation), is to tag those few statements that you think are likely to be contested. I see no reason there should be more than something like 5 of those, since with 62 references, most of those should already have been sourced. Debresser (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I plan to increase the amount of information on the Historical Overview section. In Shaye F.D. Cohen has a chapter in his book From the Maccabees to the Mishnah called “Relationship with Gentiles.” It is filled with rich information about the relationships early rabbis had with the gentile world that I think will be a great addition to this page. If anyone wants to comment on these changes, please let me know on this Talk Page or on my Talk Page.

(Jackfribes123 (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC))

Updating Page Info

I plan to increase the amount of information on the Historical Overview section. In Shaye F.D. Cohen has a chapter in his book From the Maccabees to the Mishnah called “Relationship with Gentiles.” It is filled with rich information about the relationships early rabbis had with the gentile world that I think will be a great addition to this page. If anyone wants to comment on these changes, please let me know on this Talk Page or on my Talk Page.

(Jackfribes123 (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2016 (UTC))

@Jackfribes123: Great, thank you for your work. GABHello! 23:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Adding new sections

I hope to reduce some of the gaps in this page by adding new sections that are responsive to some of the questions that have been asked. My aim is not to alter or replace what has been written so far but to supplement it with new material. Any comments from wiki folks would be appreciated!!Twelve Manhattan (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Twelve Manhattan

Thank you for your additions to the article, Twelve Manhattan. And for providing reliable sources. I can't speak for other editors, but please consider my silence and the fact that I haven't undone your changes to be my support. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Same here. Debresser (talk) 05:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Malik Shabazz for your comment and your support. And thank you Debresser! I know you have both worked on this page and I appreciate your support. There is a lot of good information out there. I hope to import some of it onto this page. There are ideas for 2-3 more sections, once I can muster the information and citations. Meantime, thank you again! I appreciate the support.Twelve Manhattan (talk) 14:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Twelve Manhattan

I am now in the process of attempting to answer some questions asked in January, 2014 by Rcbutcher--what does a rabbi actually do, he asked. I'm working on a new section for this page entitled "Functions." It should be available for review in my sandbox. Any comments would be appreciated!!Twelve Manhattan (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)Twelve Manhattan

This page needs a section on rabbis and the rabbinate in Israel--organization, functions, the Chief Rabbinate, courts, synagogues and religious councils, etc. Twelve Manhattan (talk) 16:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)Twelve Manhattan

I am not sure that is a good idea. This article is about the institution in general. We already have Chief Rabbinate of Israel. Debresser (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Point well taken. No need to duplicate what is already there.Twelve Manhattan (talk) 15:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)Twelve Manhattan

Section "Honor" is Repeated

The top-level "Honor" section should be eliminated. The subsection "Honor" should be combined or grouped with section "Authority", IMO. 77.126.46.34 (talk) 06:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

This is an excellent suggestion imo and I have implemented it today. The Honor sub-heading now follows the Authority subheading, which seems logical and correct. It seemed odd to me that the "honor" due to rabbis should be discussed before the reader learns anything about their history or functions. I hope that editors will expand both of these sections about which many interesting things could be said. Twelve Manhattan (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Twelve Manhattan

Question: Does a Rabbi have to be Married?

Does being a Rabbi automatically mean that the Rabbi MUST be married, in order to have fulfilled the doctrines of the beliefs? Should he be married BEFORE becoming a Rabbi, otherwise he cannot get married, similar to some christian traditions, or is this irrelevant and they can get married after becoming a Rabbi?

Moreover, shouldn't there be a section mentioning the specific "characteristics" or qualities/qualifications/achievements (i.e. specific knowledge, mastery of scriptures, etc), among other things that someone must have fulfilled before being ordained as Rabbi?

Please send me a personal message as answer to this question as well.

____Ἑλλαιβάριος Ellaivarios____ 00:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Any male Jew should have children. This is a Divine commandment (be fruitful and multiply). So he would have be married at least once in his lifetime, since one is not supposed to have children outside marriage. Rabbis are in no aspect different in all of this. In short, in Judaism there is no connection between being a rabbi and one's marital status, in whatever way. Debresser (talk) 00:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
What about gay Rabbis ? Implications of traditional values versus realities of modern liberal situations is worth discussing in the article. Rcbutcher (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I think you have the answer in the terms "doctrine" and "commandment" - hard to call yourself a teetotaler and still drink. Contradictions. Like being a Jew and marching in a Nazi rally - something doesn't add up. Dogma just works that way.Thomas (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

All of this depends on the denomination. Among the Orthodox, a rabbi would be expected to be married, but not necessarily before ordination, because his time in education doesn't permit earning a living (except maybe in a kollel with a stipend); hence Orthodox rabbi could be single for a while after ordination and then get married; very odd if not married eventually. Btw not all males have to have children under Jewish law--there could be a physical/mental/legal impediment which exempts. Among other branches, it would be odd to have an unmarried rabbi, only because in a synagogue setting you will be serving mostly families with kids and it would be good to be a role model; but not impossible to be single, especially (young) assistant rabbis. Finally, in a denomination that permits gay rabbis, obviously he or she could be single or married. At least that's how I see it.Twelve Manhattan (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Twelve Manhattan

I agree with this. I'd like to add to this, and to my previous reply above, that an Orthodox rabbi can be ordained while still unmarried, but to be accepted to the office in a synagogue would not usually happen while unmarried, for the same reason mentioned above that a rabbi should be able to understand his congregants and be a role-model for them. Debresser (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Debresser for the comment. I am reviewing the talk page carefully as well as the Article, and trying to fill in some gaps, add citations and clean up some language. I also tried to upload a picture of a Chag HaSemikha from YU that I got from a YU newsletter but some bot took it down. Not a problem, really, can do without! Twelve Manhattan (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)Twelve Manhattan

Ner Yisrael under Charedi section?

Why is Ner Yisrael listed in the charedi section and not the Orthodox/Modern Orthodox section? NI is not charedi at all. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge it is absolutely haredi. Debresser (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
it's not. Chadetz Chaim might have converted to charedism (even though they allow college and colored shirts), but nirc isn't charedi.Sir Joseph (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Do you have a source for that? FuriouslySerene (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Do you mean if I have a source that a yeshiva that doesn't have a white shirt only uniform, gives degrees, etc. isn't Charedi? This is the issue with labels, were they to be in Israel, the school would be banned as you read the news in Israel where it flares up every so often when someone tries to open a school even "more charedi" than NIRC. Perhaps, I will grant you a new term, American Charedi and we should use that to differentiate what people commonly call charedim in Israel to the US and other countries. And lastly, do you have a source that calls NIRC Charedi? Sir Joseph (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
And now that I think of it a bit more, Chafetz Chaim is certainly not charedi. (I was thinking of the Brooklyn branch being Charedi, but that is not the Chafetz Chaim yeshiva) They define not charedi so much so that there is a generalization of someone being a "chafetz chaim boy" which is distinct from being Charedi. Both should be moved to the Orthodox section. And again, no source that CC is charedi. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Adam S. Ferziger, in Beyond Sectarianism: The Realignment of American Orthodox Judaism (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2015), p. 214, says Ner Israel and its community are "more moderate than" other Haredi strongholds and continues, "That said, Ner Israel is still very much seen as part of the Haredi world..." although in the vanguard of new initiatives in that world which are then adopted by other yeshivahs, like Lakewood. He would seem to be arguing for a brand of American Haredi-ism. Don't know if that's the kind of source that is wanted here.Twelve Manhattan (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2017 (UTC)Twelve Manhattan
Based on the Wikipedia article Yeshivas Ner Yisroel and on my personal conversations with students, I think Ner Yisroel is haredi. Debresser (talk) 10:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Then again, Wikipedia is not a RS nor is Debresser. Even assuming the NIRC claim, where is the source for Chafetz Chaim? Sir Joseph (talk) 14:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
And yes, haredi in Israel is in general stricter than in America. Even in Israel there are differences between haredi in haredi cities or in non-haredi cities. Debresser (talk) 10:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
And that should be reflected in this and in the Haredi article. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Twelve Manhattan, that is helpful. Unless Sir Joseph has a source beyond his own personal knowledge, there's no reason to change how Ner Yisroel is characterized. FuriouslySerene (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
What about Chafetz Chaim? Sir Joseph (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm not aware of a reliable source that does not consider them Haredi, but please feel free to share your sources here. Otherwise, it's just original research. FuriouslySerene (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Please show your source considering them charedi as opposed to Orthodox. Otherwise it's just OR to include them in Charedi section. And again, if you consider NIRC and CC charedi, what do you consider an Israeli Charedi? It is ludicrous to call a Chafetz Chaim student a charedi. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Since when is Haredi Judaism not part of Orthodox Judaism? You might want to read the Haredi Judaism page. FuriouslySerene (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Did I say that? Look at the page. There is an Orthodox/Modern Orthodox section and then a Charedi section. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes you did, you said "charedi as opposed to Orthodox." If a person is Haredi, they are also Orthodox. FuriouslySerene (talk) 21:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
As I said, if you actually look at this article, there are two sections, Orthodox and Charedi. While you may nitpick on language I think everyone else understood what I meant. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that was quite as clear as you think it was. I think you're suggesting that there is a group of Jews who are "plain Orthodox." While that's an interesting theory, it's not recognized in any reliable source I'm aware of. It's also pretty confusing for characterization purposes. Please see Orthodox Judaism#Streams of Orthodoxy for a list of Orthodox groups. FuriouslySerene (talk) 21:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Then you must not be as knowledgeable on this subject as you think. Charedi Jews are a subset of Orthodox Jews. People can be plain Orthodox Jews if their not Modern or Charedi, after all, Charedi is often-times called Ultra-Orthodox. And again, Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. I mean, all you have to do is google Orthodox Jew and look at the books, for example there is one book titled, "Orthodox Jews in America" and in the examples it cites, it doesn't go into the subsets. After all, the Charedi subset is most often applied to Israeli Jews and it's only fairly recently that people apply it to American/World Jews. Most other Jews that are Orthodox are just plain Orthodox. See also here: Many Orthodox consider these labels inexact and oversimplified, and in fact, some Orthodox Jews would chafe at the implication that they might possibly fit neatly into any one of these categories. on page 13. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Our friend, Adam Ferziger, discusses CC on pp. 162-164 of his book (cited above) and states it has a "unique place among Haredi yeshivas" for its masters program in education, modern attire, and public service for students (serving in Hatzolah and so forth). So while some might write CC out of the Haredi camp for its departures, other mainstream authors will deem it unique within that camp for these very features. The latter I believe is the better view. Btw can anyone say what a CC student would call himself and his roshei yeshiva--Modern Orthodox or haredi? Twelve Manhattan (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC)Twelve Manhattan
They would be called just plain Orthodox. I spent time in a CC affiliate and I don't think anyone there would ever be classified as Charedi. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rabbi/Archive_1&oldid=1137110134"