Wikipedia

Talk:Criticism of Judaism/Archive 3

< Talk:Criticism of Judaism
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Noleander in topic Proposed new section: "Critics claim that Judaism's precepts have led to violence"
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

"Women's rights and divorce" section?

Latest comment: 14 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion

Avraham: you deleted the section "Women's rights and divorce" and in your comment you say "per talk page Hitchens discussion". But that criticism was not supported by a Hitchens source, it is from many other sources (you may have accidentally deleted it because it was next to a criticism supported by a Hitchen source). The one particular source that was in the article was the book "The coming of Lilith". But many other notable, reliable sources are available Do you think this is a notable criticism? There are a large number of criticisms in the womens rights area, mostly focusing on Orthodox formulations, but the section you deleted was focusing on one criticism in particular: agunah. Can we restore the section? --Noleander (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be restored too. The discussion in the Hitchens section doesn't come to (a) any conclusion about anything to do with the women's rights section (b) any actual conclusion about anything else (c) any discussion whatsoever about women's rights. Go ahead and restore it - its been 3 days and no objections have been raised against your suggstion to restore it. Newman Luke (talk) 12:53, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, but maybe it should be under a top-level section named "Criticism specific to Orthodox Judaism"? That would help two ways: (1) clarifying that the criticism does not apply to other streams of Judaism; and (2) paralleling the existing "Criticism specific to Conservative Judaism" section. --Noleander (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

See section below re: Hitchens as a critic of Judaism. -- Avi (talk) 03:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The source for that deleted section was not Hitchens. --Noleander (talk) 11:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Avi: Do you still object to this section, as it was originally written? Or was there just some confusion because Hitchens was a source of a section next to this section (he was not the source for this section). Would additional sources be beneficial? Would it help to add some balancing text such as "Most religious laws that are claimed to be discriminatory are not strictly followed by many modern denominations of Judaism" or something similar? --Noleander (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I've re-written the section to include that balancing material, so it now reads: Judaism has been criticised because its religious laws discriminate against women and violate women's rights. Criticisms include the claims that women cannot get divorced without the husband's permission, that women cannot be rabbis, that many privileges and practices are restricted to men, and that women are treated as inferior to men in some religious texts. Countering this, it is pointed out that some branches of Judaism do not follow discriminatory policies, that this kind of discrimination is also found in other religions such as Catholicism and Islam, and that the religious texts also proclaim that women are to be respected, honored, and valued. Sources for this include: Rachel Adler, author of "Engendering Judaism: an inclusive theology and ethics"; Tova Hartman, author of "Feminism encounters traditional Judaism: resistance and accommodation"; Tikva Frymer-Kensky, editor of "Studies in Bible and feminist criticism"; Haviva Ner-David, author of "Feminism and Halakhah: The Jew Who (Still) Isn't There"; and Judith Plaskow, co-author/editor of "The coming of Lilith: essays on feminism, Judaism, and sexual ethics". I think the section could include "see also" links to Jewish Feminism, Feminist Theology, and perhaps List of Jewish feminists. --Noleander (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
A few questions:
  1. Can you provide specific sources for which practices and privileges you mean?
  2. To which texts are you referring when you sat that women are treated "inferiorly"?
-- Avi (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

On question #2, "inferior" is a perhaps a poor word choice: more accurate would be unequal to men? second class? excluded from power and privilege? Maybe just using direct quotes from the sources (in the article) would be best? See quotes below for more accurate wording. On question #1, here are some quotes that define the criticisms in more detail:

"[Women] are viewed in Jewish law and practice as peripheral Jews ... Members of this category are exempt from all positive commandments which occur within time limits. ... Members of this category have been 'excused' from most of the positive symobols which, for the male Jew, hallow time, hallow his physical being, and informboth his myth and his philosophy." Rachel Adler, quoted by Haviva Ner-David, page 313 in New Jewish feminism: probing the past, forging the future edited by Elyse Goldstein

.. we make a profound statement when we acknowledge that the Bible is patriarchical. We are brought to the realization that the Bible contains a fundamental moral flaw: it does not treat all humans as equals. Frymer-Kensky p. 161

At the end of the article, which includes much harsh and deep criticism of the halakhic system and its androcentrism, [Rachel] Adler called upon the rabbinic authorities of her time to solve these problems. And if they could not meet the challenge, she called upon women to agitate for them to do so. page 314 of Ner-David.

Therefore [Adler's] halakkic system would be non-hierarchical, nonauthoritarian, nonapologetic, and nonexclusionaary.... Adler would not be content if women were to be allowed into the 'mens club' of Judaism and the halakhic system, because that would value traditional male methods over nontraditional methods that have been considered feminine and therefore less worthy Ner-David p. 317

I see .. the hierarchical assumptions built into that communal structure as but one symptom of a Jewish world in serious need of repair. Equal access is merely a first step toward a much deeper transformation that can only take place when women ... insist on ... rewriting what the rules should be. Ner-David p. 312-314

[Women] are viewed in Jewish law and practice as peripheral Jews ... Members of this category are exempt from all positive commandments which occur within time limits. These commandments would include hearing the shofa on Rosh Hashanah, eating in the sukkah, praying with a lulav, praying the three daily services, wearing talit and tefillin, and saying Shema. Members of this category have been 'excused' from most of the positive symobols which, for the male Jew, hallow time, hallow his physical being, and inform both his myth and his philosophy. Rachel Adler, quoted by Haviva Ner-David, page 313

"The existence of agunah is a crime against women, a disgrace to the Jewish community, and a violation of human rights that demands immediate remedy. It is also a symptom of the systemic exclusion of women from power and authority in traditional Judaism. .. women's powerlessness is further magnified by a larger religious system that is also entirely under male control.... In cases where a woman's husband refuses her a "get", she can find herself in a nightmare realm, bargaining away her means of survival and occasionally even custody of her children. .. the persistent exploitation of the inequalities of Jewish divorce law is also a more deliberate attempt to curtail women's power in a time of social change... elements within the Orthodox community are using the fundamental inequity of Jewish law to ensure women's powerlessness and to reinforce the status quo" Plaskow, p 147-148

...--Noleander (talk) 00:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Re-reading question #1, I think it is asking for a list of practices? If so, the quote above is on-point: [Women] are viewed in Jewish law and practice as peripheral Jews ... Members of this category are exempt from all positive commandments which occur within time limits. These commandments would include hearing the shofa on Rosh Hashanah, eating in the sukkah, praying with a lulav, praying the three daily services, wearing talit and tefillin, and saying Shema. Members of this category have been 'excused' from most of the positive symobols which, for the male Jew, hallow time, hallow his physical being, and inform both his myth and his philosophy. from Rachel Adler --Noleander (talk) 01:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Also, I propose to make the title of this new section "Women" (so it is a bit broader, and not just "Womens's rights") and add a subsection on niddah, discussing the alleged downsides of the menstruation taboos. This subsection would be in addition to the topics listed above (Divorce/agunah; Excluded from rituals; Excluded from role of rabbi; and inequality/patriarchal-ness). Sources for the niddah content would include:
  • Beth S. Wagner (2001). "Mitzvah and Medicine: Gender, Assimilation, and the Scientific Defense of Family Purity". In Susan Nadell (Ed.), Women and American Judaism: historical perspectives, pp.201-222.
  • The hole in the sheet: a modern woman looks at Orthodox and Hasidic Judaism; by Evelyn Kaye
  • Feminism encounters traditional Judaism: resistance and accommodation; by Tova Hartman
There would be a "seealso" link to the existing niddah article, so the WP:summary style guideline is relevant. Balancing content would include, for example, the quote: "For every statement stressing defilement, danger, and impurity, exists a counter-statement emphasizing respect toward women, the holiness of sexual intimacy, and the incidental benefits of sexual regulation and restraint." (Beth Wagner). --Noleander (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I saw no comment on this, so the section was added. --Noleander (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Avi: I see you changed the title of the Niddah subsection. The WP article on niddah defines it as "a Hebrew term which describes a woman when she is menstruating, or who has menstruated without yet completing the associated ritual requirements. Literally, the term means separation, and generally refers to separation from ritual impurity; The term is overwhelmingly used in Judaism to refer to the rules of Jewish law concerning menstruation". I believe niddah is a hebrew word that most readers will not understand. Can you suggest a section title that would be more understandable to readers of this English-language encyclopedia? Specifically, so a reader looking at the table of contents would know what the section was about? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 16:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I changed the title to "Niddah (mentruation laws)" which seemed like a good middle ground. --Noleander (talk) 12:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

proposal to add new section on "historical accuracy of religious texts"?

Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I propose to add a new section on "historical accuracy of religious texts". The suggested content is something like: "Judaism's historical foundations - particularly some of the narratives of the Torah - are claimed to be historically inaccurate, including the events surrounding the Exodus, the account of the earth's creation, the tradition that the Torah was written by Moses, and the events surrounding the battle of Jericho. However, some branches of Judaism do not interpret these narratives literally, and many Jews consider some narratives to be metaphorical or mythical. SeeAlso sections could be: The Bible and history#Hebrew bible, Mosaic authorship, The Exodus, Battle of Jericho#Historicity. Sources could include:

  • The Blackwell reader in Judaism; Jacob Neuser, p 172
  • The tenacity of unreasonable beliefs: fundamentalism and the fear of truth; by Solomon Schimmel (p 39-100)
  • 20th Century Jewish Religious Thought; Arthur A. Cohen; p 681
  • "Historicity of Moses" in The Biblical World (vol 2), John Van Seters p 194-207
  • "Warfare and the Hebrew Bible" in The Biblical World (vol 2), Thomas M. Bolin p 45
  • The seventy faces of Torah: the Jewish way of reading the Sacred Scriptures, Stephen M. Wylen, p 11-12
  • Creating Judaism: history, tradition, practice; Michael L. Satlow, p 78

....--Noleander (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I saw no comment on this, so the section was added. --Noleander (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
It's been 7 days, so inserting the section. --Noleander (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Avi: could you provide more detail on your concerns about this section? Many other "criicism of [some religion]" articles include similar sections, such as Criticism of Islam#Truthfulness of Islam and Islamic scriptures and Criticism of the Latter Day Saint movement#Criticisim of sacred texts. This seems useful to readers of the encyclopedia, since the religious texts are generally fundamental to a religions theology and practice. Are you suggestiong that the Hebrew Bible is not central to Judaism? Or do you think that the content belongs in another article such as Criticism of the Bible and merely linked-to from this article? --Noleander (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

proposal to add new section on "some religious laws are unreasonable"

Latest comment: 14 years ago26 comments3 people in discussion

I propose to add a new section titled "Some religious laws are unreasonable or impede progress", which would have content such as: Some of Judaism's religious laws, such as the law prohibiting work on the sabbath or the law prohibiting interest on loans, have been criticized as being irrational, injust, incompatible with modern society, and an obstruction to the progress of Judaism. SeeAlso links could include: Reform movement in Judaism, Reconstructionist Judaism. Sources could include:

  • The Jew in the modern world: a documentary history, by Paul R. Mendes-Flohr
  • Jacob Neuser (2001), "The Doctrine of Torah", in The Blackwell reader in Judaism
  • Jewish liturgical reasoning, by Steven Kepnes
  • Judaism faces the twentieth century: a biography of Mordecai M. Kaplan, by Mel Scult

Balancing material would be along the lines of: "Some leaders of these movements believe that the religous laws are intended to be insprirational and instructive, but not strictly binding", and "in recent years Reform Judaism is using more Hebrew in services and is re-introducing some traditional rituals." --Noleander (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

What title would you suggest that captures the essence of the criticisms? --Noleander (talk) 19:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Modernity vs. Tradition or something to that effect. The criticism is that Traditional Judaism follows millenia-old strictures. There are people who find that too restrictive (Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist, etc.). -- Avi (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I have renamed the section Perceived archaism of various traditions. -- Avi (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I guess that is not too bad, but it seems to miss the key point, as I read the sources, which was: "Following all the religious laws literally makes it difficult for Jews to integrate [one source used the word "assimilate"] into modern society, and hence makes it difficult for Jews to pro-actively contribute to ethical/moral improvement of the world", and several sources included the following key point: "... which is their special responsibility as the chosen people". So it is a lot more than a mere anachronism: it is an obstacle to carrying out a critical moral/religious duty. Some Judaic scholars expressed it as a conflict or tension between isolationism and universalism. --Noleander (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Of course, there are many who believe that the very fact that Jews are able to simultaneously adhere to their sacred traditions AND contribute to society be it in medicine (Rosalyn Sussman Yalow), mathematics (Robert Aumann), bioethics (Mordechai Halperin), entertainment (Steven Hill), finance ([Mayer Amschel Rothschild]]), art (Solomon Hart), etc. that in and of itself indicates their ability to carry out the "special responsibility" of which you speak. You should find it interesting that the criticism universally comes from those who do not adhere to said traditions, which is understandable, but indicative. The criticism is no more than an opinion, which can be basically seen as weak by looking at the contributions of Jews throught the millenia who have adhered to the "archaic" traditions. Wikipedia must not be used as a soapbox to push one opinion over another; the way it is listed now seems more neutral to me, although I welcome others' opinions and comments. -- Avi (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Your phrase "the special responsibility of which you speak" is a bit puzzling. I am not speaking in these criticisms: these criticisms - including all the wording in the section - are from the sources, not me. Please focus on the sources, not the editors. The point Im making is: There are two distinct criticisms that are described in the sources: (1) many religious laws are irrational or unreasonable (and hence there are all sorts of exceptions and dispensations to get around many of them); and (2) the religious laws make it difficult for Jews to engage in modern society in such a way as to properly fulfill their religious obligations to mankind. Those are the criticisms (paraphrased) from sources, not from me. The title of the section, as it stands now, is focusing only on (1). Perhaps if we break the section into two distinct parts, it would be more informative for the reader? --Noleander (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually, please explain how either is notable. The article is not meant to list every criticism of Judaism, only the notable ones. I can understand the former, as that was part of the reason why Reform, Conservative, and most every non-Orthodox branch of Judaism came about. But the latter is, at best, a subcategory of the former and is contained therein. -- Avi (talk) 04:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
My reading of the documents describing the genesis of the Reform movement is just the opposite: escaping the inconveniences of the religious laws is rarely mentioned. Instead, the primary focus seems to be on escaping the isolation that traditional observance imposed. For example: The Jew in the modern world: a documentary history By Paul R. Mendes-Flohr, Jehuda Reinharz p 155: "Emancipation implied the breakdown of the Jews' millennial social and cultural isolation ... It was said for the first time in European history the Jews could participate in non-Jewish culture without the stigma of apostacy". And:p. 156: "Sociologically, the way of life of halakhic Judaism vouchsafed Jewry to an unambiguously distinct ... identity - an identity that was the source of a profound discomfort to those Jews who sought cultural, social, and political integration in the Gentile community in which they lived." There are many, many other sources that have similar explanations for why reform-minded Jews criticized the more traditional approach. --Noleander (talk) 05:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
... here is another source: from Judaism faces the twentieth century: a biography of Mordecai M. Kaplan By Mel Scult: "According to Kaplan, the Jewish heritage, including the belief in God, must be reinterpreted so that it will be consistent with the intellectual outlook of the twentieth century. The Torah, which is Jewish civilization in practice, must be given a new functional interpretation." --Noleander (talk) 05:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
... another: "... Spinoza committed the heresy of advocating the abrogation of the Torah. Subsequently, in the 19th century, Reform ideologists held that the abrogation of parts of the traditional Torah was not a heresy at all but was necessary for the progress of the Jewish religion. Similarly, many intellectuals and nationalists held that it was necessary for the progress of the Jewish nation. Ahad Ha-Am called for the Torah of the Heart to replace the Torah of Moses and of the rabbis, which having been written down, had, in his opinion, become rigid and ossified in the process of time." from The Blackwell reader in Judaism, chapter 12 "The Doctrine of Torah" by Jacob Neuser --Noleander (talk) 06:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I re-wrote the section to be clearer, and to more accurately reflect what the sources were saying. I separated the section into two parts, so the distinction between the two criticisms is clearer to the reader. --Noleander (talk) 04:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Avi: could you explain why you deleted the "strictly following the religious laws leads to isolation from other cultures" section? This is a very widely documented criticism - the sources indicate it is the primary reason that the reform movement diverged from traditional practices. Many, many highly notable sources discuss it, and they were cited in the section. Perhaps we could improve the section heading to more accurately reflect the content? Or add some balancing content? --Noleander (talk) 16:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are some quotes from the secondary sources cited in that section. Most of the secondary source are discussing the Reform Judaism movement, and how it departed from traditional Judaism:

  • "[the reform movement] implied the breakdown of the Jews' millennial social and cultural isolation." - Historian Jehuda Reinharz, in The Jew in the modern world: a documentary history, Paul R.Mendes-Flohr (Ed.); p 155.
  • "[Jews] were eager to achieve integration in their host countries" and "these movements wished to tear down the barriers separating Israel from other nations", - Historian Efraim Shmueli in Seven Jewish cultures: a reinterpretation of Jewish history and thought', p. 168
  • "According to Kaplan, the Jewish heritage, including the belief in God, must be reinterpreted so that it will be consistent with the intellectual outlook of the twentieth century. The Torah, which is Jewish civilization in practice, must be given a new functional interpretation." - Mel Scult, biographer of Mordecai Kaplan in Judaism faces the twentieth century: a biography of Mordecai M. Kaplan - p. 341

Perhaps the title of the subsection could be improved from "Leads to isolation from other cultures" to something like "Criticims of traditional practices by reform movement leaders"? --Noleander (talk) 16:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think these are criticism of Judaism? Jayjg (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
That's a good question. The article Criticism of Conservative Judaism illustrates the point: if a religion branches into 2 or 3 formulations, the branch happens for a reason. Each branch, usually, has some doctrinal differences with the other. Often, the leaders write polemics outlining why they are moving in a new direction, and usually they criticize (explicitly or implicitly) the other branches. Chistisans criticizing Judaism; Islam criticizing Christianity; LDS criticizing fundamentalist LDS; Anglicans criticizing Catholics, etc, etc. The Criticism of Conservative Judaism article contains criticism of the conservative movement from both the Reform and Orthodox branches ... I think it is a neutral, well-written article. My intention with this section was similar: to capture the criticisms of the traditional/orthodox practices (made by Reform and Reconstructionist, etc). These criticisms could be in a dedicated article ("Criticism of Orthodox/traditional"); or a section in the Orthodox J. article. In any case, it is appropriate for _this_ article to summarize the inter-branch criticisms, with "see also" links to the more detailed articles (if they exist). In addition, some of the criticisms may come from outside the faith. For example, the criticism that "Ortho. J leads to a community that is isolated from neighboring communities" may come primarily from Reform J, but there may also be non-Jews that make that same criticism; so it is not 100% inter-branch criticisms. --Noleander (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
What makes you think these specific quotes are criticism of Judaism? They don't appear to be. Do you have any reliable sources indicating that these are "criticisms of Judaism"? Jayjg (talk) 04:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Several secondary sources say that the leaders of the reform movement and the leaders of traditional J criticized each other's doctrines, while the reform movement "revolted" from the traditionalists, and that both sides wrote numerous polemics (mostly during the late 19th century, but the sources indicate the inter-branch critiques continue to this day). A typical quote is that the reform-movement "revolted against the Rabbinic stranglehold". The above quotes (in prior post) seemed to capture the essence of the most important criticism the reform movement leaders levied against the traditionalists in Europe in the late 19th century. What do you think was the most (religion-oriented) criticism the Reform movement made towards traditionalism in the late 19th century? What do you think the primary (religion-oriented) criticism is today? --Noleander (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is content from Reform movement in Judaism: Criticism and interchange: Since the very beginnings of the movement, reformers and traditionalists have often been strongly critical of one another. Reformers often felt traditionalists were encouraging secularization and assimilation by creating an identity that Jews could not relate to or be nurtured by. They accused traditionalists of being irrational or intellectually naive in rejecting what modern textual criticism, historiography, psychology, anthropology, and sociology had to say about Jewish history and peoplehood. Traditionalists often argued on behalf of tradition making much the same claims: that reformers were creating a meaningless Jewish identity that encouraged assimilation and failed to nurture the Jewish spirit. They accused reformers of dishonoring Torah, and even God in their pursuit of the modern. Do you think this content is accurate? --Noleander (talk) 16:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

There are quite a few secondary sources that analyze the criticisms between reform movement and traditional/orthodox, including:
  • Response to modernity: a history of the Reform Movement in Judaism By Michael A. Meyer
  • After emancipation: Jewish religious responses to modernity by David Harry Ellenson
  • The Jewish religion: a companion by Louis Jacobs
  • Judaism: history, belief, and practice by Dan Cohn-Sherbok
They all seem to say that the primary objections the reformers had to traditional approaches was that the traditional approach inhibited people from fully engaging in society, from making progress, from participating in modernity. Expressed negatively: the reforms claimed that the traditionalist approach engendered an isolated community with out-dated practices and beliefs. Do you concur with that summary? Another approach to this content is to put it into the Orthodox Judaism article, and just have a link from this article to it, as is already done with Criticism of Conservative Judaism. What do you think of that idea? --Noleander (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
The above quotes (in prior post) seemed to capture the essence of the most important criticism the reform movement leaders levied against the traditionalists in Europe in the late 19th century. According to whom do they "seem to capture" etc.? According to whom are these "criticisms of Judaism"? Less WP:NOR please, more WP:V. The topic here is ostensibly "Criticism of Judaism", not "Philosophy of Mordechai Kaplan". Oh, and by the way, Nahmanides was not a "critic" of Judaism. A difference with a fellow scholar over biblical exegesis is not a "criticism of Judaism". However, Googling for any random negative statement one thinks one can pin on Judaism will inevitably produce this sort of nonsensical conclusion. Jayjg (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Jayjg: could you answer some of the questions I posed above? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
My initial question still remains unanswered. Jayjg (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
JayJG: you are correct, the quotes provided above do not directly support the topic "criticism of traditional Judaism (by leaders of reform movement)". Quotes from secondary sources that are more on-point have been collected in a Talk sub page here. Again, the proposal is to include these criticisms of traditional Judaism in the encyclopedia; the location could be a new article; or in Reform movement in Judaism; or in Criticism of Judaism; or in Orthodox Judaism. The existing section Reform movement in Judaism#Criticism and interchange touches on this topic. The article Reform Judaism (North America) also touches on some aspects of these criticisms (especially the notion of exile). The similar article Criticism of Conservative Judaism may provide guidance on whether it warrants a dedicated article or not. --Noleander (talk) 00:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Avi: could you explain why inter-branch crtiticisms do not belong in this article? Although detailed criticism certainly belongs in other articles, the WP:Summary style guideline is appropriate here. See, for example, Criticism of Catholicism, about 50% of which is criticism "from the Protestants" (e.g. mass in Latin; papal infallibility, etc). --Noleander (talk) 13:22, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

proposal to add content to "Criticism from Christianity" section

Latest comment: 14 years ago15 comments2 people in discussion

The section "Criticism from Christianity" contains two criticisms: (1) Judaism is not righteous because it did not accept Jesus as the messiah ( Supersessionism); (2) Favored status. I propose to add more cites for those, and to add two more criticisms: (3) "Judaism has been criticized because the Talmud and other tracts are allegedly hostile towards Christianity and Jesus Christ"; and (4) "Judaism has been criticized because it is claimed that Judaism is responsible for the death of Jesus Christ". Seealso link could be Yeshu. Sources could include

  • Anti-Judaism and the Gospels , William Reuben Farmer (Ed.)
  • Jesus in the Talmud by Peter Schäfer
  • From rebel to rabbi: reclaiming Jesus and the making of modern Jewish culture by Matthew B. Hoffman

Balancing information would be something like "Claims by Christians that 'Jews killed Jesus' are historically unsubstantiated, and are actually a manifestation of inter-religion propaganda", and "The rare mentions of Yeshu in the Talmud may refer to individuals other than Jesus Christ". --Noleander (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Which specific criticism are you talking about? There are several in that section. If it is one that has been repudiated by an authority, does that mean that it cannot be mentioned in this article? Or would it be better to include the criticism here, and then note the repudiation, as in "... however, the Catholic church repudiated ...". And, are you sure that the Catholic church was the only critic that levied the criticism (they don't speak for Protestants, Evangelicals, etc). --Noleander (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The point is, that the deicide is an antisemitic canard, not a valid criticism, and does not belong in the article. As for being criticized for not accepting Jesus, well, every non-Christian religion is subject to that. Have you edited Criticism of Jainism, Criticism of Hinduism, Criticism of Zoroastrianism, etc. yet? -- Avi (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that once a criticism is regarded by many authorities as a canard (and I concur that deicide is so regarded) that categoriziation precludes it from also being regarded as a criticism also? Or are you saying that there are no historians/scholars that contend that Jews did play a significant role in the death? Or are you saying that Paul himself was deliberately spreading a false rumor in 1 Thes. 2:14–15? --Noleander (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that we try not to use wikipedia to bolster antisemitism of any kind. -- Avi (talk) 00:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Some scholars say Romans were responsible, some say Jews were (see deicide article for details) - because the events were so long ago, the historical truth may never be known. Certainly the deicide accusation has been used by bigots, but it also was used by Christians who believed they were representing an accurate historical fact. That distinguishes deicide from most antisemitic canards, which (by definition) are demonstrably false. Therefore, deicide is a criticism and deserves to be documented in this article. I understand your discomfort, and suggest that we address it by including appropriate material to put the criticism in context, something like "many scholars have concluded that the Romans were responsible ... and the Catholic church repudiated ...". Is that acceptable? --Noleander (talk) 03:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
If the Pope, who by Catholic definition is infallible, declared it to be false, it is inappropriate to continue said antisemitic falshood on wikipedia. -- Avi (talk) 04:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Should I take that as a "yes"? --Noleander (talk) 05:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
No, I do not believe that patently false antisemitic canards should be given anything remotely resembling support in an encyclopedia. It has its own article Jewish deicide and is also handled in Antisemitic canard#Accusations of deicide. It is not a valid criticism and does not belong here. -- Avi (talk) 05:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm. Could you read deicide and Jewish deicide again? They both are very clear that scholars agree that it is very plausible that Jews were responsible for the death. You may be confused by the Vatican announcements, which were focusing on absolving modern Jews of "collective guilt" for the death. I don't think those pronouncements address either (1) who specifically caused the death; or (2) the vast range of Protestants and Evangelicals outside the Catholic church; and (3) nor would a modern repudiation erase the fact that the notable criticism was made in the past. --Noleander (talk) 05:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I restored the subsection, and included more balancing information, including the Vatican decree. --Noleander (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Avi: could you explain your recent changes to the Deicide section? As discussed above, that particular criticism is both a criticism and a canard. This article needs to capture the "criticism" aspect of the claim. The canard aspect can be mentioned here, and a link to canard-related articles is appropriate. But changing the title of the section is distorting the content. Are you suggesting that all critics that made that criticism of Judaism were deliberately spreading rumors that they (the critics) knew to be false? What do you think of the sources for that section ... do you think they all characterize the criticism as a canard? --Noleander (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are some quotes from the secondary sources in the section:

  • "As the New Testament tells the story ... the Jewish leadership of Jesus's time not only rejected Jesus, but conspired to hand him over to the Romans for cruxifiction. A neutral observer might have come away from the whole episode thinking that the main point of the dispute between Jews and Christians is over whether the Jews killed Jesus. The surprising truth, however, is that Jews have long acknowledged the role played by a few prominent ancestors in the events leading to the Cruxifiction. Basing himself of the Talmud (before it was censored - of which more below), the twelfth-century sage Maimonides wrote of 'Jesus of Nazareth, who imagined that he was the Messiah, but was put to death by the court.' And again: 'The sages, of blessed memory, having become aware of his plans before his reputation spread among our people, meted out fitting punishment for him." - David Klinghoffer, Why the Jews Rejected Jesus: The Turning Point in Western History, p 2-3.
  • .. and on page 40, quoting Josephus: "When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified ..."
  • "... Paul is not hostile to Jews or to his native religion. Paul's argument is against traditional Judaism, but not against Jews, election, or the Law as such... he was not an apostate in the usual meaning of the word, since he believed in the God of Israel and he accepted Jewish scripture as the word of God." from E. P. Sanders, "Reflections on Anti-Judaism in the New Testament and in Christianity" in Anti-Judaism and the Gospels' William Reuben Farmer (Ed.). p. 274
  • Following quotes from The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide, by Gerd Theissen:
  • "Historians have a special obligation to elucidate the historical causes of the death of Jesus, because Christian anti-Judaism has time and again been nourished by the charge that 'the Jews' killed Jesus." p. 440
  • "Historically the involvement of the Jewish authorities [in the death of jesus] is disputed: the descriptions in Mark and Matthew report a trial before the Sanhedrin with a death sentence ...The motives for theSanhedrin would have been pragmatic reasons or theological convictions. They could have regarded Jesus as a political danger ... which had to be removed as quickly as possible. However, most exegetes assume theological convictions as a motive." p.443
  • "The argument for the historicity of the trial before the Sanhedrin was presented in most detail in J. Blinzler 'The Trial of Jesus'... so according to Blinzler Jesus was in fact condemned to death by the Sanhedrin, but the Sanhedrin was dependent on the Roman prefect Pilate to carry out the death penalty." p. 448
  • Quoting a letter from Pontius Pilate to Emporer Claudius: "... the chief priests [of the Jews] were moved by envy against him, and they seized him and delivered him to me [Pilate], and ... accused him of being a socerer and transgressing their law. And I believed this was so, and ordered him to be scourged, and handed him over to their will. And they crucified him, and set guards at his tomb." p. 473

These secondary source confirm what is stated in the deicide and Jewish deicide articles, namely that there is genuine dispute by historians over the responsibility for the death. In particular, ancient Christian critics, like Paul, may have had a good faith belief in their claims. Therefore, the deicide assertion is both a criticism and a canard (unlike most canards of recent origin which can be definitively proven to be false). I propose that we add additional information into the section (in addition to the balancing information already in the article, namely: "many historians concluded that Romans bear primary responsibility.." and "Vatican absolved all Jews of collective guilt") indicating that many bigots use this claim as a canard, most usages in recent times are bigoted, and that the historicity of the claim is a matter of significant debate. I also suggest that we specify that only ancient usages were genuine criticisms. --Noleander (talk) 09:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Avi: could you explain your comment: "We are not in the business of perpetuating debunked antosemitic stereotypes. This "criticism" is not a valid criticism and does not belong in the article"? I think the "debunked" issue was addressed above, was it not? Can you point to some WP policies that apply? I'm trying to understand your concern to see how it can be addressed. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 14:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to add new section on heterim

Latest comment: 14 years ago20 comments3 people in discussion

I propose to add a new section on heterim and other exceptions to religious laws. There are two distinct criticisms: (1) some orthodox consider some heterim to be inconsistent with (or violation of) religious laws; and (2) some people consider some heterim to be subterfuges. These heterim include: Shabbos goy; heter mei'ah rabbanim (100 rabbis divorce); Heter Mechira (permitting farmland to be farmed in Shmita); and heter iska (interest). Chief source is "The Shabbat elevator and other Sabbath subterfuges: an unorthodox essay on circumventing custom and Jewish character " by Alan Dundes. Balancing information would be something like: "Many authorities characterize these exceptions as illustrative of the flexibility of Judaism to adapt to changing circumstances." --Noleander (talk) 04:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Rediculous; you are trying to distill 2000 years of responsa into some mixture and pull together disparate sources to make a new entry in your criticism list; this s both classic cherry picking as well as another indication of your obsession with Judaism. -- Avi (talk) 08:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Could you explain more? The purpose of this article is to capture notable criticisms of Judaism. Do you think this particular criticism is not sufficiently notable? Or that there is not enough balancing information to make it neutral? --Noleander (talk) 13:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The criticism is fringe at best and may represent a complete misunderstanding of what a heter and psak is at worst. Non-notable and out of scope. -- Avi (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Why do you say it is out of scope? The critics are asserting that religious leaders have made exceptions to religious laws, which gives rise to several criticisms (e.g. favoritism; calling into question the validity of the laws themselves; etc). Why do you say it is not notable? What do you think of the sources, are they not significant enough? --Noleander (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Because the concept of heterim, l'chatchila, and bdieved go back to the Oral Law which was given at Sinai; it is indicative of a fundamental misunderstanding of halakha, the consept of syagim and when chumros are NOT imposed, allowing people to rely on the base ruling, which is the source of 99.9% of all heterim. It is much too complicated for this article, and I firmly believe that giving credence to scattered individuals who have misread, misapplied, misinterpreted, and misjudged issues is completely inappropriate. -- Avi (talk) 18:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm. I don't understand your point. You say "giving credence to scattered individuals", but this article is not about giving credence or trying to persuade readers. Its goal is to document criticisms. What do you think of the idea of including your point above (very complicated; a fundamental misunderstanding, etc) in the section so that readers will understand that the critics may not have the full picture? --Noleander (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Not every author or criticism is notable, or even credible. The fact that you can find a source or three somewhere does not ipso facto make something wikipedia worthy—per WP:UNDUE, not every opinion is appropriate for the article. This issue is both very complex and misunderstood by many, and I believe even having this section gives credence to something mistaken, misunderstood, and non-mainstream. -- Avi (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm still confused. Are you saying that the criticism is not notable, or that it is notable, but that the topic is so confusing/complex that readers will get misled? --Noleander (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I believe that it is not notable and often arises from a misunderstanding. More importantly, notability does not arise from being discussed in books but in how prevalent it is in mainstream discussion. As I said, with tens of thousands of volumes of responsa printed in the last few centuries or so (See here (40,000) or here (68,000 texts) and these are likely the minority of works, may others having been lost in various pogroms or the world wars), three of four English books written by non-halachic experts are nowhere near notable. -- Avi (talk) 19:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I understand. Another question: I concur that in an article on religious laws, that these criticisms may be a minority viewpoint, and hence may not warrant being in an article that is devoted to the religious laws themselves. But what about an article, like this one, that is devoted to criticisms? Can you see how the criticisms might be notable in this article, even tho they are not notable in an article on religious laws? --Noleander (talk) 19:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are some quotes from secondary sources on this criticism:

  • "To those who [do not observe sabbath laws], a meticulous observance of the sabbath is in itself slavish, and at times hypocritical. For example, the practice of using a 'Shabbes goy' to light the fire or to perform other chores forbidden on the 'day of rest' smacks of hypocricy, and some of the mechanical devices that are used to circumvent strict regulations smack of the ridiculous.... While circumventional 'legal fictions' are understood as such among the observant, their antagonists find grounds for the moral question as to whether systems of subterfuge, or legalistic-minded evasions of what are taken to be God's laws, do not in themselves create a type of mind that does not match up to the high moral concepts of Judaism. And so they ask - do we want to win against God on technicalities, so as to have our comforts, while we pretend to put them aside?" = Meyer Levin in Beginnings in Jewish Philosophy, p. 149
  • "Legal loopholes are the mainstay of the legal profession and laymen are often frustrated when criminals are let off the hoolk on a technicality, perhaps subverting the intent of the law. Jewish law has come under heavy criticism for its use of these same technicalities.... The truth is that the legal loopholes [to the religous laws] are part of the Divine system and for good reason.. The laws of the Torah are a means ...to an end. The legal loophole is a mechanism to resolve these tensions, a way of remainign faithful to the eternal laws of the Torah while being responseve to the needs of the time". - Rabbi Jay Kelman, "Torah In Motion" web site, http://torahinmotion.org/articles_dvarim/divrei_torah/archives/behar_legal_loopholes.htm
  • "The Israeli Supreme Court today stepped into a religious dispute ... ordering the chief rabbinate not to allow local rabbis to decide for themselves whether to authorize produce from Jewish land to be sold during this sabbatical year. The case centered on a loophole in religious law used to allow Jewish-owned farms to grow and sell kosher produce every seventh year, when the Bible says that Jewish land in Israel should be left fallow." Steven Erlanger, "Israel's Top Court Backs Loophole in Farming Law", New York Times, Oct 25, 2007
  • "Physicist Richard Feynman recounts the following experience [of a Sabbath Goy operating an elevator] ... Feynman was incensed by the practice.... What here disturbs Feynman is the problem of corruption: How can a Jew ask somebody else to do something which he views as sinful to do.... What has troubled Jewish theologians far more is the problem Feynman does not get into - evasion. If a Jew is not permitted to perform 'creative labor' directly, how can he do so indirectly by hiring someone else to do it for him? ... So Feynman's elevator operator was merely continuing a long-standing, much controverted, but multiply blessed tradition of circumvention" - Leo Katz, Ill-gotten gains: evasion, blackmail, fraud, and kindred puzzles of the law
--Noleander (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The above quotes indicate a misunderstanding of how heterim work most of the time. Regardless, in my opinion it is still not a notable criticism and does not belong on wikipedia. -- Avi (talk) 01:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, do you think an RfC is appropriate now? --Noleander (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Avi: One of the above secondary sources says "Jewish law has come under heavy criticism for its use of these same technicalities...." and that is from a Rabbi (http://torahinmotion.org/articles_dvarim/divrei_torah/archives/behar_legal_loopholes.htm). Are you saying that Rabbi is mistaken about the amount of criticism? --Noleander (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
There have been hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of accepted Rabbinic authorities. What makes you think that one modern Rabbi is notable in the slightest? Completely non-notable and inappropriate. In your defense, your understanding of Jewish history and Jewish halakchic history is obviously almost non-existent, so you do not know what and who in the past 2000 years has been accepted and what is not notable. However, your continued picking up various individual authors who are either not experts on religion or not experts on Halakhic Judaism results in improper suggestions. -- Avi (talk) 15:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Just as another aside, this Kelman that you quote is a great proponent of heterim if you read his article (The truth is that legal loopholes are part of the Divine system and for good reason. The Torah is not a just set of laws, it is so much more than 613 mitzvot. The laws of the Torah are, if one may say so, a means - though a crucial one - to an end. It is the guidebook on how to set up a just and ethical society....What makes legal technicalities valid and even meritorious is the fact that they are legal. One can never override Divine law because it conflicts with what we perceive as the ultimate values of the Torah. We do not and we can not ignore the law. Nevertheless by incorporating the values inherent in Torah law our Sages are able to continue the process of revelation ensuring that we view the Torah anew each and every day.) Your cherry-picking of statements is disingenuous at best and outright distortionary at worst. -- Avi (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I concur that that Rabbi is a supporter of the heterim. That is not the point. He is being cited as a secondary source, not a primary source. He says that there are significant criticisms of heterim. Back to the RfC: I want to make sure I capture your concerns accurately. Your primary concerns are: (1) that the criticism "some exceptions to religous laws are subterfuges and evasions" is not notable; and (2) if that criticism were included in the encyclopedia, that no amount of balancing information could make it neutral? Is that a correct summary of your position? --Noleander (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Pulling out that one sentence is a misrepresentation of the article, which is known as cherry-picking and a violation of WP:UNDUE. I believe that the criticism is not notable, and that notability has not been proven by the sources you bring. If you can find notable sources that discuss it accurately, of course that is a different issue. You have not done so, and I am not sure that anyone will be able too because of the fact that this criticism, although extant, is not notable ipso facto. The sources you bring must discuss the criticism in and of itself; cherry-picking a sentence out of an article that is the opposite of the criticism is misleading. -- Avi (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

The various rulings metioned in the first post are not considred subterfuges. Eruv is not a weakness which circumvents the prohibition of carrying on the Sabbath. On the contrary. It is a law unto itself to which one whole Talmudic tractate is devoted. Eruv does not contravene the intent of the Shabbat law of hotsa'ah. The Torah says if an Eruv exists, carrying is allowed. The same with Cooking on Shabbat. The only group who may view all these things as "rabbinic loopholes", are the uneducated in the workings of Halacha or the Karaite's who only accept the biblical law with out its oral understandings, explanations and relevant boundaries. But for authentic Jews, having warm food on Shabbat is a mitzvah, not a sly deviation of the Divine word. Similarly regarding the Fast of the Firstborn: Jewish law states if you have a Seudat mitzvah you don’t need to fast. It is not a loophole. Loopholes means finding a way of doing something that does not break the law, but achieves the same result as if one has broken the law. But Jewish law explicitly mentions these things as a way of exempting oneself from the law. In other words, these exemptions are provided for within the law. With regard to Prozbul and Heter iska, there is a fine line between Loophole and Legal fiction, and it is the latter to which these both belong. The Torah put the power in the hands of Chazal to make laws as they see fit. They are not finding ways to avoid following what God intended, or to act in a way which is technically breaking His will. Chesdovi (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to add a new "Discrimination" subsection on "Sabbath cannot be broken to save the life of a non-Jew"

Latest comment: 14 years ago16 comments3 people in discussion

I propose to add a new subsection "Sabbath cannot be broken to save the life of a non-Jew". This would be under the existing section "Discrimination against non-Jews". The new content would discuss the controversy surrounding the mishnah "If any man saves alive a single soul [in Israel], Scripture imputes it to him as though he had saved a whole world" (San. 4.5 in Danby's translation; Hanoch Albecks edition includes the "in Israel"). Also, the relevant interpretation of Rabbi Samuel Eliezer Edels in his Hidushei halachot, in his commentary to San. 37a. The primary source for the content would be "Seven Jewish Cultures" by Efraim Shmueli. Balancing information would include (1) the authentic version of the mishna (as found in the Jerusalem Mishnah and Munich manuscript) does not include "in Israel"; (2) many versions of the mishnah did not include "in Israel", (3) there is no recorded instance that any non-Jew died due to Sabbath observance; and (4) all modern Rabbis agree that it is acceptable to violate the Sabbath to save the life of a non-Jew. --Noleander (talk) 05:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That is actually incorrect, as the accepted psak is that we are allowed to violate the Sabbath to save the life of a non-Jew. Now you are starting to spread disinformation together with your obsession, and matters may need to be escalated. -- Avi (talk) 08:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Could you explain more? The purpose of this article is to capture notable criticisms of Judaism. Do you think this particular criticism is not sufficiently notable? Or that there is not enough balancing information to make it neutral? Whether a criticism is factually correct or not is beside the point: the purpose of the encyclopedia is to capture crticisms, whether misguided or not. If a criticism is misguided (e.g. the critic is basing the criticism on incorrect facts), then that information should certainly be included in the section, as balancing information. If that is your primary concern, perhaps we could work together to improve the article in that regard? --Noleander (talk) 13:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Mis-representative, not in practice for millenia, so completely unnotable, fringe, and intellectually dishonest. -- Avi (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Why do you say it is not notable? It is discussed in detail in a very acclaimed book "Seven Jewish Cultures", plus many, many other sources. Also, I believe that the Israel's Chief Rabbi issued a judgement on this in 1966, with tremendous publicity in the Israeli press at the time, true? As for intellectually dishonest: can you suggest some way to present the information that would make it more honest? perhaps some balancing information? --Noleander (talk) 16:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Here are some quotes from the secondary sources in that section:
  • "The tension in the Talmudic culture is exemplified in the variance between two versions of the famous mishnah: 'If any man saves alive a single soul, Scriputre imputes it to him as though he had saved a whole world.' (San. 4.5 in Danby's translation). There are some who claim (e.g. J. N. Epstein) that this is the correct version of the mishnah, but ther are others who maintain that the mishnah speaks not of one soul, but of 'one soul in Israel'. This is the version that appears in Hanoch Albeck's edition and we need hardly comment on the significance of the variance.... Talmud scholars have established that the authentic version of the mishnah was '..saves a single soul...'. ... But most editions of the Mishnah contained the version '..saves a single soul in Israel ...'. Needless to say, the adoption of one or another version has important legal ramifications: does the saving of a Gentile's life warrant desecration of the Sabbath? This question was debated in the Rabbinic culture, resulting in opinions that were generally unfavorable, sometimes downright harsh, to Gentiles, as, for example, the words of Rabbi Samuel Eliezer Edels ... whose famous commentary ... accompanies most editions of the Talmud, in the commentary to San 37a: 'This is intended to teach you that any man who saves one soul in Israel, and it is intentionally specified 'one soul in Israel,' in the singular form, as this is the image of God the Singular One of the world, and Jacob's form is His likeness ... but Kuttim [i.e. Gentiles] do not have the form of man, only the form of other creatures, and whoever brings about the loss of a soul among them does not lose the world, and whoever saves a soul among them neither adds nor diminishes anything in the world'. Rabbi Shne'ur zalman of Ladi ... and Rabbi Israel Meir Cohen ... also accepted this mishnah in its later, anti-Gentile, version. They permitted healing the Gentile sick on the Sabbath 'for the sake of peace' and in order not to incur ill-feeling. This problem has arisen again in the State of Israel regarding the ministering of medical treatment to Arabs, and was brought before Chief Rabbi Untermann for judgement. See a collection on this subject in Rabbi Waldenberg, Responsa Tzitz Eliezer, Jerusalem, part 8, ch. 6." - Efraim Shmueli, "Seven Jewish Cultures, p 123, 261.
  • "Chief Rabbi I. J. Unterman published a lengthy responsum to explain his ruling... To the London Jewish Chronicle, for instance, long an articulate leader of the anti-Orthodox crusade, the rumpus provided welcome grist to the mill ... We have here then, a classic example of rabbinical endeavors to adjust the Halakhah [by making exceptions to the sabbath rule] within the framework of its own rules, to the exigencies of the times or indeed to the demands of ethicial priority... How odd it is, therefore, to find the case picked by the detractors of traditional Judaism as evidence for the ... 'pusilanimity' of the rabbis. Here they constantly clamor for rabbinical relaxation, yet they are outraged when the rabbis in fact relax the law." - Immanuel Jakobovits, in Tradition vol. 8, no. 2.
Perhaps the section could be improved by emphasizing the fact that these dicta cannot be considered in isolation, but only in the context of subsequent rabbinical interpretation? --Noleander (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, for hundreds if not thousands of years there has been no difference between Jew or Gentile in the breaking of the Sabbath to save a life. This is misleading and inappropriate, and fosters a misrepresentation--it does not belong. -- Avi (talk) 01:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, do you think an RfC is appropriate now? --Noleander (talk) 03:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I'd first want to see if expert/knowledgeable participants have a consensus--part of my concern with your edits is that they exhibit a woefully inadequate education in Jewish history/halakha which is why you are giving credence to opinions which are fringe/undue. -- Avi (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Please focus on the content, not the editors. Regarding the RfC: sure, let's wait a few days to see if any other editors have suggestions for consensus here. In the meantime, if you want to propose some way to inlcude this topic that is balanced and neutral, maybe you could suggest it? --Noleander (talk) 15:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Here is another source on the subject: This is Noah Feldman writing in the New York Times magazine ... online here :

"One time at Maimonides [school] a local physician -- a well-known figure in the community who later died tragically young -- addressed a school assembly on the topic of the challenges that a modern Orthodox professional may face. The doctor addressed the Talmudic dictum that the saving of a life trumps the Sabbath. He explained that in its purest form, this principle applies only to the life of a Jew. The rabbis of the Talmud, however, were unprepared to allow the life of a non-Jew to be extinguished because of the no-work commandment, and so they ruled that the Sabbath could be violated to save the life of a non-Jew out of concern for maintaining peaceful relations between the Jewish and non-Jewish communities.
Depending on how you look at it, this ruling is either an example of outrageously particularist religious thinking, because in principle it values Jewish life more than non-Jewish life, or an instance of laudable universalism, because in practice it treats all lives equally. The physician quite reasonably opted for the latter explanation. And he added that he himself would never distinguish Jewish from non-Jewish patients: a human being was a human being.
This appealing sentiment did not go unchallenged. One of my teachers rose to suggest that the doctor's attitude was putting him in danger of violating the Torah. The teacher reported that he had himself heard from his own rabbi, a leading modern-Orthodox Talmudist associated with Yeshiva University, that in violating the Sabbath to treat a non-Jew, intention was absolutely crucial. If you intended to save the patient's life so as to facilitate good relations between Jews and non-Jews, your actions were permissible. But if, to the contrary, you intended to save the patient out of universal morality, then you were in fact guilty of violating the Sabbath, because the motive for acting was not the motive on the basis of which the rabbis allowed the Sabbath violation to occur.
Later, in class, the teacher apologized to us students for what he said to the doctor. His comments, he said, were inappropriate -- not because they were wrongheaded, but because non-Jews were present in the audience when he made them. The double standard of Jews and non-Jews, in other words, was for him truly irreducible: it was not just about noting that only Jewish lives merited violation of the Sabbath, but also about keeping the secret of why non-Jewish lives might be saved. To accept this version of the tradition would be to accept that the modern Orthodox project of engagement with the world could not proceed in good faith."

--Noleander (talk) 01:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

To determine if notable or not, here are some sources that discuss the issue:

  • Arthur Segal, in A Spiritual and Ethical Compendium to the Torah and Talmud, 2009, p. 228.
  • 1966 Chief Rabbi judgement in Israel
  • Edward Alexander, The Jewish divide over Israel: accusers and defenders - Transaction Publishers, 2006 p. 121
  • Alan Dershowitz The Case Against Israel's Enemies p 102-103.
  • Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg A collection of rabbinical commentaries on the subject: "Responsa tzitz Eliezer", by . Jerusalem, part 8, ch 6. [cited by Shmueli]
  • Fred Rosner (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Jewish medical ethics, 2003, p 866.
  • Irving Greenberg, "Religion as a Force for Reconciliation and Peace: A Jewish Analysis", in Beyond violence: religious sources of social transformation in Judaism, 2004, p. 100
  • Efraim Shmueli, Seven Jewish Cultures. Cambridge University Press. 1980. p. 261. Detailed discussion of the Talmud's writings on the subject.

--Noleander (talk) 01:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

To clarify: the criticism is not that there has been any actual deaths resulting from Sabbath laws; the criticism is "The religious laws can be interpreted in a manner that treats non-Jews differently than Jews". Recall: this subsection is proposed to go into the existing "discrimination against non-Jews" section. I propose that the wording in this subsection be clarified that the essence of the criticism is simply that the religious laws - on their face - treat Jews and non-Jews differently. And then, for balance, emphasize that that difference has never been carried out in a life-or-death situation; quite the opposite: all Rabbinical authorities have determined the all life is sacrosanct. --Noleander (talk) 01:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No, "this topic," nor most of the "topics" in this article should be presented because they are "un-encyclopedic." They are "un-encyclopedic" because they are the perpetuations of stereotypes at best. But a step in the right direction would be moving the article to a more apt title such as "Incorrect stereotypes of Jews." Article space should not be devoted to the perpetuation of negative and incorrect stereotypes of people. Bus stop (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Again; the criticism is incorrect, perpetuates an antisemitic sereotype, and does not belong in the article. -- Avi (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Avi: Can you point me to some WP policies on those concerns ("incorrect", "stereotype")? I re-read the WP policies, and they are clear that a notable criticism can be included, even if it is claimed to be factually wrong; and even if it is offensive or stereo-typing. I'm asking so I can prepare for an RfC, and I want to make sure I address your concerns. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for new section: "Critics claim that Judaism's precepts have led to unfair land-ownership practices and expulsion of peoples in the Middle East"

Latest comment: 14 years ago19 comments3 people in discussion

I propose to add a new section by that name. The proposed section would document the positions of critics on allegedly unfair land-ownership practices that are claimed to be caused by or motivated by Judaism's precepts. Related articles include Religious Zionism, Mizrachi (religious Zionism), Aliyah, Land of Israel, 1948 Palestinian exodus, Antizionism#Jewish anti-Zionism, Ha-Aretz ha-Muvtachat, and Masei#Instructions for taking the land. The proposed section would be brief, relying mostly on links to other articles (see WP:Summary Style guideline). Sources could include:

  • The ethnic cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappe
  • Arab attitudes to Israel by Yehoshafat Harkabi
  • The Bible and Zionism by Nur Masalha
  • Palestine and Israel: a challenge to justice by John B. Quigley
  • Under the Cover of War: The Zionist Expulsion of the Palestinians by Rosemarie M. Esber
  • The birth of the Palestinian refugee problem revisited by Benny Morris
  • Saleh Abdel Jawad (2007) "Zionist Massacres: the Creation of the Palestinian Refugee Problem in the 1948 War" in Israel and the Palestinian refugees, Eyal Benvenistî, Chaim Gans, Sari Hanafi (Eds.)
  • Israel and the Palestinian refugees by Eyal Benvenisti
  • World orders, old and new by Noam Chomsky

Balancing content, to ensure neutrality, would include: distinguishing Zionism from Judaism; citing Jewish activists that oppose confiscation; listing other causes of the Palestinian exodus; noting that Maimonides did not include Aliyah (return to the Land of Israel) as one of his 613 mitzvah (commandments); including information about how many Jews believe that Zionism (now) is contrary to religious precepts (because the Messiah has not yet arrived). --Noleander (talk) 06:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

This is getting somewhat out of hand. You are starting to confuse issues, as it is the very same religion that drives the Neturei Karta to want to give everything back to the Palestinians. Perhaps you can take a break from what is seemingly becoming an obsession and focus on other religions. To me, it looks like you are scraping the barrel to find whatever you can to criticize Judaism. -- Avi (talk) 08:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Could you explain more? The purpose of this article is to capture notable criticisms of Judaism. Do you think this particular criticism is not sufficiently notable? Or do you think there is not enough balancing information suggested to make it neutral? --Noleander (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Misrepresentative, please do not confuse Zionism with Judaism. One is a politcal movement, the other a highly complex religion. -- Avi (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Many notable sources agree with that point you make: that Zionism is very distinct from Judaism. However, many critics of Judaism equate the two, or assert that Zionism's fundamental nature is religious; or that Zionism is a manifestation of religious principles of Judaism. Would it help to provide some quotes from critics? or secondary sources on the topic? This article needs to capture key criticisms, even if the critics are misguided. In this case, I believe some of the critics cite statements by leading Zionists that explain the religious nature of their movement's goals, and so that is a factor in their criticism. --Noleander (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Any source claiming that particular aspects of Zionism derive from pre-Zionist Jewish ideology needs to be rock-solid, as Zionism at its roots is a secular movement (Herlz was utterly ignorant of Jewish theology) and it is much more readily classifiable as a 19th century ethnic self-determination movement with socialist tendencies. JFW | T@lk 22:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
This article is not about Zionism, it is documenting what critics say about Judaism. Sources for this article only need to accurately quote what the critics say. An opinion - even it based on incorrect facts - is still an opinion, and deserves to be documented in this encyclopedia. (And, by the way, the critics do seem to have lots of facts that lend support to their opinion ... but this article is not the place to decide if the critics are "right" or "wrong"). If other sources claim that the critics are flawed in their logic, that can be addressed by including such assertions in the section, following the discussion of the critics viewpoints. --Noleander (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
No; only notable criticisms are meant to be listed here, this is not Judaismpedia or AntiJudaismpedia, this is WIKIpedia. We have rules regarding what gets weight and what does not (see WP:NPOV and in specific WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE). In my opinion, you are lacking in understandning what is mainstream and what is not, and trying to list every opinion, which is a violation of wikipedia policy. I am assuming good faith by attributing this lack of perspective as one brought on by ignorance and lack of study of Judaism and its history (and merely Googleskimmg books) as opposed to anything more fundemental, -- Avi (talk) 17:03, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Can you provide more details on why you think that this particular criticism is not notable? The sources above (Nur Masalha, Ilan Pappe, etc) indicate it is extremely notable. Indeed, it appears that many critics claim that the largest, most significant, criticism of religion in general (and Islam and Judaism in particular) is the "conflict in the middle east", including the settlement issues, which some critics trace back to the biblical Numbers 33:50-55. --Noleander (talk) 17:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are some quotes from a few of the many secondary sources on this topic:

  • "Zionism aspires to restore the Biblical promised boundaries. It is a new manifestation of the ancient aspiration for the Land of Israel promised in the Bible." - Yehoshafat Harkabi in Arab attitudes to Israel p. 75
  • "The settler movements, then, although 'extreme' from the combined perspectives of mainstream Judaism and international diplomacy, nevertheless have extremely deep roots in the authoritative Biblical account of a divinely ordained right to the Land, and of a divinely sanctioned ruthlessness in its retrieval and retention. .... The ultimate root o fthis attitude is the fact that the theology of a Chosen People, reinforced by traditional rules against intermarriage with Gentiles, created an acute us-them condition, in which, indeed, according to the Biblical accounts, ruthless ethnic cleansing was engaged in by God as well as his chosen people." - Ron Geaves in Islam and the West post 9/11, p 31.
  • "By regarding Zionism as only a manisfestation of Judaism, [the Arab authors] add a dimension of historical and cultural depth to their analysis.... Zionist settlement and Zionist belligerence in 1948 are only links in a long chain of trespasses and insatiable lust for the property of others. Fundamental Zionism is manifested in the claim that God is the God of Israel, and other nations have no part in him.... [W]hen they [the Arabs] examine Judaism as a religious and historical phenomenon, they find that it always had an attachment to the Land of Israel. This means that it is 'Zionist' in essence and history, so that Judaism and Zionism are one and the same." - Yehoshafat Harkabi in Arab attitudes to Israel, pp. 200-201, 215-216
  • "Neo-Zionist messianics envisage a theocratic regime for Israel based on the halacha, and spurn universal, humanistic and liberal values… .. [T]he ideo-theology that guides Gush Emunim, which is shared by many others in the Zionist religious-nationalist camp, embraces the supremacist and essentialist notions of Jew as a divinely 'chosen people' ('am segula), and as the rightful owners of the 'promised land'. The indigenous Palestinians, on the other hand, are aliens and no more than illegitimate tenants and squatters on the land, and are a threat to messianic redemption. Their human and civil rights are no match for the divine legitimacy and the religously ordained duty (mitzvah) of 'conquering, possessing, and settling the promised land" - Nur Masalha, The Bible and Zionism: invented traditions, archaeology, and post-colonialism in Palestine-Israel p 194.
  • "The Gush Emunim is driven by messianism, literalism (especially with regard to Jewish chosenness and the belief in the territoriality of God's covenant), and by their sense of purpose - to redeem Eretz Israel and restore it to its rightful owners. Indeed, redemption and restoration are the leitmotifs of this movement to which all energies are directed. Wrapped in a sense of chosenness and exclusivity, settlers believe that God gave them the land for their exclusive use. ... the Hebron settlers' ideology implies that they have the right to engage in any tactics to achieve their objectives - the ultimate one being the expulsion of the Palestinian population." -Cheryl Rubenberg The Palestinians: in search of a just peace, p. 162
  • "The Gush Emunim settlement movement finds justification for the annexation of the occupied territories, or at least prohibition on withdrawal, in Maimonides' commentary, where he wrote in 'Book of the Commandments': 'We are commanded to inherit the land that God gave to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and must not leave it in the hand of any other nation or deslate…. We must not leave the land in their hands [the seven Canaanite nations] or [in the hands of] any other people in any generation' (Harkabi 1986:208)."- Nur Masalha, The Bible and Zionism: invented traditions, archaeology, and post-colonialism in Palestine-Israel p 194-195
  • "…the Zionist movement, which claims to be secular, found it necessary to embrace the idea of 'the promised land' of Old Testament prophecy, to justify the confiscation of land and the expulsion of the Palestinians. For example, the speeches and letters of Chaim Weizmann, the secular Zionist leader, are filled with references to the biblical origins of the Jewish claim to Palestine…. By use of this premise, adopted in 1937, Zionists alleged that the Palestinians were usurpers in the Promised Land, and therefore their expulsion and death was justified." - Saleh Abdel Jawad (2007) "Zionist Massacres: the Creation of the Palestinian Refugee Problem in the 1948 War" in Israel and the Palestinian refugees, Eyal Benvenistî, Chaim Gans, Sari Hanafi (Eds.), Springer, p. 78.
--Noleander (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

In addition to Numbers 33:50-55, the secondary sources indicate that another religious text that is prominent (regarding aliyah) is the glosses written by Nahmanides on Maimonides' Sefer Hamitzvot ... one source says that Nahmanides "criticized" Maimonides for omitting Numbers 33:53 from his list of 613 commandments. (States, nations, and borders: the ethics of making boundaries by Allen E. Buchanan). I propose to include mention of Nahmanides' gloss in the section, in addition to Numbers 33:50-55. --Noleander (talk) 01:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is an issue of Zionism and not Judaism. I would request that others weigh in on this as well. -- Avi (talk) 01:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Did you read those quotes above from secondary sources? Perhaps we should solicit the input of some editors with expertise in Palestinian issues - they may have some more insight. In any case, do you think an RfC is appropriate now? --Noleander (talk) 03:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Proposal for consensus: What if we put this proposed content into the existing article Religious Zionism and simply have a 1 or 2 sentence subsection in this article and link to Religious Zionism (following WP:Summary Style). --Noleander (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, anyone who can state that the Ramban was a critic of Judaism demonstrates a severe flaw in their education about Judaism. I cannot even conceive of someone who has studied Jewish history making that statement with any level of seriousness. Wow. Read a little bit about him. -- Avi (talk) 15:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if I was not clear. The critics of Judaism's religious precepts cite several religious texts/precepts that they claim are directly or indirectly causing land ownership conflicts in the Middle East. The critics most often cite Torah verses about the promised land, primarily Numbers 33:53. A second religious text that the critics cite (though not as much as the Torah) is the assertion by Nahmanides that Numbers 33:53 should have been a commandment. The critics point to several statements by modern Rabbis who refer to Nahmanides's glosses to justify land-acquisition policies. To summarize: the criticism is "Religious texts/precepts are causing land ownership conflicts, and the two of the most notable texts/precepts are Numbers 33:53 and Nahmanides' claim that Numbers 33:53 should be a commandment". --Noleander (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
... and the statement that "Nahmanides criticized Maimonides" is from Menachem Lorberbaum (2003), "Making and Unmaking the Boundaries of Holy Land", in States, nations, and borders: the ethics of making boundaries, Allen E.Buchanan (Ed.). Cambridge University Press, p.26-27; where he writes "In his glosses to Maimonides' Book of Commandments, Nahmanides criticizes Maimonides (1135-1204) for failing to enumerate a specific positive commandment to 'inherit' the land of Israel: 'We have been commanded to inherit the land which God ... gave our fathers...(Num 33:53)'... Thus, Nahmanides who is the most outspoken of medieval Rabbinic authorities on the issue of Jewish sovereignity over the land, expresses his position with clear acceptance of the contours of traditional controls - the Promised Land only, and the conquest of its inhabitants ..." Regarding this proposal: the point is that some critics are critical of the fact that modern Rabbis have used Nahmanides opinion to support allegedly unfair land-ownerhip policies. --Noleander (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Avi: do you have any comment on the suggestion I made above (in the post starting "proposal for consensus")? --Noleander (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I created the new content, based on the above sources, and placed it into a temporary sub-page under this Talk page, here: Talk:Criticism of Judaism/Proposed section on Middle East land-ownership conflict. The current proposal is to add that new content into the Religious Zionism article, and to have a WP:Summary Style section (with a 1 or 2 sentence summary) in this article, with a "main" link to Religious Zionism. If you have any comments on the proposal, please reply here (rather than at Talk:Criticism of Judaism/Proposed section on Middle East land-ownership conflict) so the discussion is not spread over two places. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed new section: "Critics claim that Judaism's precepts have led to violence"

Latest comment: 14 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion

I propose to add a new subsection by that name, under the existing "Endorses Violence" section. The proposed section would document the positions of critics on violent acts that are allegedly caused by or motivated by Judaism's precepts. Guideline WP:Summary Style may be appropriate. The new content would be different from the current content in the "Endorses violence" section, because the current content is limited to ancient events. Related articles include Meir Kahane, Kach and Kahane Chai, Jewish fundamentalism and Cave of the Patriarchs massacre. For reference, some other sections in this encyclopedia that cover similar topics relative to other religions include:

Sources could include:

  • Sacred fury: understanding religious violence by Charles Selengut
  • Jewish fundamentalism in Israel by Israël Shahak, Norton Mezvinsky
  • The gun and the olive branch: the roots of violence in the Middle East by David Hirst
  • Terror in the mind of God: the global rise of religious violence by Mark Juergensmeyer
  • Reckless rites: Purim and the legacy of Jewish violence by Elliott S.Horowitz
  • Beyond violence: religious sources of social transformation in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - James Heft (Ed.)
  • The Vanishing American Jew: In Search of Jewish Identity for the Next Century by Alan M. Dershowitz

Balancing content, to ensure neutrality, would include: quantifying the small numbers of extremists relative to the entire population of Judaism; statements by Jewish leaders condemning terrorists acts; identifying peaceful precepts from the Tanakh and Talmud. --Noleander (talk) 06:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Consider yourself challenged to find sources of the latter variety. I'd start with the very last comment in the Mishnah. JFW | T@lk 16:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I've found several good examples of peaceful precepts in the Tanakh and Talmud, and they will serve as good balancing material, to ensure neutrality of this proposed section. --Noleander (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Could you proceed and provide us with these sources like you have done above with the "negative" sources. Also, could I suggest that sources in Tanakh and Talmud might not necessarily be the ideal sources, and that a secondary source might be preferable? JFW | T@lk 22:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Can I make sure I understand your question: You want me to provide secondary sources that describe how Judaism's texts contain precepts that suggest peaceful policies? I just want to make sure I understand your question. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I propose to include in this section the criticism: "critics claim that Judaism's religious leaders have interpreted religious laws to allegedly support killing of innocent civilians during wartime in some circumstances" - this topic is partially addressed in the existing article Purity of arms#Rabbinic opinion, so WP:Summary style guideline is relevant. Sources for this would include

  • "ADL Strongly Condemns Declaration of Rabbis" - ADL press release, dated Sept 9, 2004
  • Rebecca Spence " Rabbis: Israel Too Worried Over Civilian Deaths", in The Jewish Daily Forward, issue of August 25, 2006.
  • Steven Schwarzschild, "The Question of Jewish Ethics Today" (Dec, 24, 1976) in journal Sh'ma (vol. 7, no. 124). Schwarzschild quotes the booklet After the War: Chapters of Meditation, Rule, and Research by Rabbi Abraham Avidan (Zamel), who was the "military rabbi" of the Central Command Headquarters.

Balancing information would include discussion of Purity of arms and its express instruction to avoid injury to non-combatants; the fact that the rabbi's advice was limited to wartime; the ADL press release itself; and condemnations by other religious leaders. --Noleander (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Here are a few quotes from secondary sources on this topic:

  • "Killing in the name of God runs like a scarlet thread through the major events of the final decades of the twentieth century.... WHen Dr. Baruch Goldstein massacred twenty-nine Muslim worshippers in the Tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron in 1994, he believed he was on a divine mission and was hailed by hard-line Israeli settlers, as was Yigal Amir, the twenty-five-year-old religious extremeist responsible for the assasination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin." Jerrold M. Post - Leaders and their followers in a dangerous world: the psychology of political behavior, p 135
  • "[Israel's Supreme Rabbinical Council] gave their endorsement to the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, declaring that it conformed to the Halachi (religious) law and that participation in the war 'in all its aspects' is a religious duty. The military Rabbinate meanwhile distributed a document to soldiers containing a map of Lebanon with the names of cities replaced by alleged Hebrew names taken from the Bible.... A military Rabbi in Lebanon explained the biblical sources that justify 'our being here and our opening the war; we do our Jewish religious duty by being here.'" - Noam Chomsky - Fateful triangle: the United States, Israel, and the Palestinians (2nd Ed, revised); p. 153-154
  • "The policy [the Bible] advocates towards the Canaanites is one of ethnic cleansing Towards the Amalekites it is one of genocide. As a matter of fact, the exectuion of that policy, as carried out by King Saul, though not punctiliously enough to satisfy the prophet Samuel, is the subject of the last Haftarah Baruch Goldstein would have heard before he carried out the Hebron massacre. Was there a causal connection? Considering that in 1980 the Campus Rabbi of Bar Ilan University publically identified the Palestinians as 'present-day Amelekites', there is, alas, little doubt about it." - John D. Rayner, An understanding of Judaism, p 57.
  • "After his arrest, Amir proclaimed that the killing of Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin was justified, even commanded, by the rulings of Din Mosser and Din Rodef, as described in the Jewish religious law, or halakha." - Jessica Stern, Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill, p 91.
  • "What about immoral acts by the Israeli military? ... And the chief question raised is military ethics, under the entrenched phrase 'the purity of arms'. There is something frightenly Prussian about the very phrase 'the purity of arms'.... Thus Milton Himmelfarb ... says 'To sacrifice even survival to exaggerated moralistic sentimentality borders on idiocy.... Some Jews really say, one may kill goyim. Since the words here cited were used, the 1973 War occurred, and much further deterioration set it. One of the consequences was a booklet put out by the Central Command Headquarters/Israeli Army Chaplaincy and authored by Abraham Avidan (Zamel), military rabbi of the Command, under the title After the War: Chapters of Meditation, Rule, and Research. One of its highlights is the rabbi's thesis that '... insofar as the killing of civilians is performed against the background of war, one should not, according to religious law, trust a Gentile [and justifies this claim, citing the utterance from teh Codes:] "The best of the Gentiles you should kill"...' It took an outraged article in the Mapam newspaper to have the booklet withdrawn by the army, but no principled refutation of its barbarism has been put forward, and insofar as any notice was taken of this occurance in Jewish publications in this country at all, tu quoque evasions were used to muddy waters. Whatever its administrative fate, the booklet reveals the mind set of some of the more sophisticated religisous and military personages..." - Stephen Schwarzschild The pursuit of the ideal: Jewish writings of Steven Schwarzschild, p 125-126
  • "A number of rabbis supportive of Gush Emunim have offered opinions that could provide the halachic basis for such policies. The substance of these opinions pertains to the identification of the Palestinian Arabs, or Arabs in general, as Amalekites .. . Haim Druckman greeted the crippling of two Arab mayors ... by quoting the book of Deborah: 'Thus may all Israel's enemies perish'. A Gush veteran, Haim Tsuria, defended Druckman: 'In every generation there is an Amalek. In our generation, our Amalk are the Arabs who oppose the renewal of our national existence in the land of our fathers'". - Ian Lustick, For the land and the Lord: Jewish fundamentalism in Israel, p 131-132
  • "… the Zionist movement, which claims to be secular, found it necessary to embrace the idea of 'the promised land' of Old Testament prophecy, to justify the confiscation of land and the expulsion of the Palestinians. For example, the speeches and letters of Chaim Weizmann, the secular Zionist leader, are filled with references to the biblical origins of the Jewish claim to Palestine…. By use of this premise, adopted in 1937, Zionists alleged that the Palestinians were usurpers in the Promised Land, and therefore their expulsion and death was justified." - Saleh Abdel Jawad (2007) "Zionist Massacres: the Creation of the Palestinian Refugee Problem in the 1948 War" in Israel and the Palestinian refugees, Eyal Benvenistî, Chaim Gans, Sari Hanafi (Eds.), Springer, p. 78.
--Noleander (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The criticisms described by the secondary sources listed above appear to fall into four distinct groups:

  1. Religious justification/motivation of violence towards Palestinians, Arabs, Lebanese, especially during wars of 1948, 1967, 1973, 2006
  2. Religious justification/motivation of assassination of Rabin
  3. Religious justification/motivation of extremist violence: Gush Emunim, Goldstein, Kach and Kahane Chai, etc
  4. Religious justification/motivation of religious advice given to soldiers by Rabbis

I propose to present those as four separate paragraphs within the section. --Noleander (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding "modern" violence content of this article (which was deleted): As a compromise, what if the "modern violence" content were simply a brief summary of the existing article Jewish religious terrorism with a "main" link to that article? --Noleander (talk) 00:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Noleander

Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Your edits indicate that you are combing sources to find any criticism you can, even if the criticism is either misguided, incorrect, or very WP:FRINGE. This is more of an indication that you seem somewhat possessed to find whatever criticism you can about Judaism, and you are not capable of approaching the article from an unbiased perspective. Notable criticisms are fine, and encouraged. But finding picayune items in some book here or there, especially ones that do not reflect current practice, is inappropriate. Perhaps a few months spent on other religions, or better yet, completely unrelated topics, would be appropriate. However, your current mission is turning you into a single purpose account for which a topic ban may be appropriate. -- Avi (talk) 08:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

An overall comment that I have made above, but bears repetition down here, and it applies to many of the above suggestions. In my opinion (of someone who has intimate experience with Orthodox Jewish life and decades of Talmud/Halakha study (30+ years) ) It appears to me that Noleander, hopefully only due to ignorance and lack of study, is not capable of separating minor opinions/comments from major ones. Above he actually states that "every opinion deserves mention". That is against wikipedia policy, which, to ensure the neutral point of view requires that articles reflect the opinions of what exists in the mainstream world. With a rich history of 3000+ years of legal structure, there are bound to be fringe positions and fringe oppositions. However, those are not appropriate for this article. Certain oppositions/criticisms are undoubtedly mainstream (treatment of women, relationship to Christianity, etc.) but others are not, and listing everything, including the non-mainstream, if not incorrect or centuries-outdated ones is a violation of our core principles. Noleander needs to realize that, and that not everything written in a book somewhere is either notable or accurate, otherwise, we should be giving full credence to hollow-earth philosophies right next to the article on the usage of philosophers stone to transubstantiate lead into gold. -- Avi (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll be happy to work with you to ensure that the content is neutral and balanced. Sometimes the critic's positions may be negative in nature, so we should work together to ensure that descriptive wording is neutral, and that ample balancing material is included. If you refer to other "Criticism of [some religion]" articles, you can see some examples where the articles were able to document criticisms, while maintaining a neutral point of view. As for specific proposed criticisms that you think are not notable, see comments above in the relevant sections. --Noleander (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Avi: Please do not misquote me. I did not say "every opinion deserves mention". My comment was within the context of a notable criticism, and I was responding to an editor who suggested that the criticism should be omitted because the criticism was (the editor claims) based on incorrect facts; my response to that editor was: criticisms that are opinions are still valid for this article, and deserve to be documented, even if the underlying factual basis is allegedly wrong. Notability was not an issue in that context. --Noleander (talk) 17:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Noleander, part of the concern is that the very presence of some of the suggestions is ipso facto unbalanced because they are inherently non-nootable. For example, while the baseline laws make certain differences, in practice, for centuries, if not millenia, Jews have desecrated the Sabbath to save the lives of Jews and non-Jews equally. Having anything on this issue is misleading and mis-representative as a criticism of Judaism. Many of the other suggestions share the same issue. -- Avi (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about the "life saving on the Sabbath" criticism? If so please see my comments above in that section, where there are a few questions I posed for you. --Noleander (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
I just deleted the section entitled "Antisemitic canard regarding the death of Jesus". Noleander restored it. Noleander, since you're "happy to work with (others) to ensure that the content is neutral and balanced" a good place to start would be not to oppose the deletion of material that is clearly not suitable for this article in any form. The first step in this would be to recognize the difference between criticism and mere invective. This kind of infantile name-calling and finger-pointing has not place in an article on serious criticism. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Please refer to the discussion above in Talk:Criticism of Judaism#proposal to add content to "Criticism from Christianity" section. There is an on-going discussion about whether the death of Jesus is a criticism or not. Could you read that section and add your comments up there? that way all the discussion will be co-located, and we can work together to get consensus. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Shahak

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

While Shahak is a popular source to cite by neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers, and other anti-Semites, WP:FRINGE teaches us a chemistry professor's musings on Judaism do not belong in reputable Wikipedia articles. THF (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC), updated 18:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Are you referring to the inclusion of Israel Shahak in the "see also" list of critics at the bottom of the article? [edit]: Ah, I see you removed a couple of citations from his books, I agree that is a good change. --Noleander (talk) 18:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Criticism_of_Judaism/Archive_3&oldid=1037621573"