Talk:Jews/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Apostates

In my carelessness the other day I posted a message here which I should have placed under the Talk:Judaism section. I have moved the original there and have changed the title of this section now but the original reply by IZAK is below.

Errr Zestuaf.....it would seem that you are really interested in bringing in "Netzarim" and the subject of "Messianics" who are CRISTIANS into this discussion. This is NOT the place to have the "stealth tactics" of "Jews for Jesus" (meaning Jews who have become Christians and are therefore APOSTATES To Judaism) in order to promote Christianity over Judaism. There is ample place to talk about Christianity. There is even an entry for Jews for Jesus, so why not go there for discussing "Messianics"?!

Why would a section about the Beit Din system help here??

This is an article about Jews as an ETHNICITY, it is not about the religious system, or mechanics, of Judaism which has in any case already been over-stated here when the article discusses "Conversions" by the different denominations. IZAK 20:24, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Right my careless mistake, I wrote the comment here in a rush before I realised that this wasn't the Talk:Judaism section (which in fact already includes a small discussion of sects). So I have moved my comment there and have changed the title.

To defend myself on your first point though, I suppose now I have to declare that I can produce documentation from my Orthodox rabbi that I am making Teshuvah from secularisation (reconstructionist) back to orthodoxy and that my Rabbi is in good standing with the Israeli rabbinate he is not a Netzarim and neither am I. I am TOTALLY against chrstian missionaries and am getting actively involved in retrieval of assimilated Jews (are you?). It would be nice if you don't accuse the Orthodox Yemenites of being At-All associated with Jews for J-man (because in accordance with Halakhical requirements the Netzarim Beit Din has been acknowledged as a legitimate orthodox Beit Din by the board of the Orthodox Yemenite Beit K'nêsêt in Raanana, Israel) unless you are claiming more authority than the Beit ha-K'nêsêt Môrêshêt Âvôt (which is recognized by the Israeli rabbinate) are you? What is your position? I just added them to the list out of pure neutrality. Netzarim are real Jews and are not in any kind of state of apostasy -unlike Reform. You aught to get your facts straight before leveling accusations brother :-) You might find these two links helpful to be able to distinguish between Messianic Apostates and Real Netzarim. [1],[2]. Netzarim are all anti-missionary onslaught and are one of the the most successful retrieval organisations in the world.

But since you focus on the point I mentioned of Apostate Jews there is a lot about them sprinkled throughout the article but what about pulling these refs together into a little section on Apostate Jews and retrieval programs? All the best and thanks for correcting me IZAK.Zestauferov 12:06, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

I just discovered a wiki entry about Talmidi Jews. It is the first I have ever heard of them. Does anyone know for certain if they fit into the apostate category or legitimate category? The links at the bottom of that page make me think perhaps the former. But they may just be bad links. Zestauferov 08:57, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

• Zest: Sounds like just another group of Jesus-believing and following Christians, nothing more or less. The "theological" splits between Christian splinter groups is very wide. It's a case of "six of one, and half a dozen of the other"...Still trying to "squeeze in" a group of Jesus-disciples into the "Jew" category is disengenious, as by now, 2,000 years of history makes anyone who follows Jesus into a CHRISTIAN and not a Jew. No theologian would mix and match two religions so determinedly as would a group of proselytizing missionaries hunting "lost Jewish souls". IZAK 09:09, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Netzarim don't carry out nor encourage conversions, but you are right (I take it you are also grouping muslims as chrstians by your commentZestauferov 03:15, 7 May 2004 (UTC)), and I also guess I have to take just criticism in that case. I am no theologian, but I do care very much about "lost souls" when it comes to my family. So I will continue to recommend http://www.netzarim.co.il to any Jewish brothers or sisters being targeted by branches of Messianic Judaism rather than write them off as gone forever. I also care about Those tempted by Reform and Reconstructionism etc. but different approaches are needed. Our major problem is image.

Anyway back to the point, how about a "Jews in apostasy" section? Any objections if I write one?

All the best Zestauferov 09:28, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

• Zest: I have Wikified your subject (Jews in apostasy) and wrote a few words, so write there. There is also ALREADY a Wiki section on apostasy so feel free to enter a "Jewish" section over there too. IZAK 07:08, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Do you mean it would be too difficult for Reform & Reconstructionists etc. to swallow to e reminded that they are no more practicing legitimate Judaism than are the Messianic Jews? Zestauferov 03:15, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

IZAK, very dissappointing here to see your lack of objectivity in your accross the board revert. You might check more carefully before you revert all changes like that please.

The section on Reform & Reconstructionism views should use the term "interpretations" not Judaism. And since the views of these apostate sects validated only by numbers is mentioned here NPOV demands the apostate messianic views be mentioned too.

The description of halakha is wrong. Ger Tzedek is still a non-Jew, there is no term in Halakha for a convert since it is against the law to even remind a convert of their past.

Judaism is a culture (ethnicity means culture not race) and though one may reject one's culture (which is called apostasy in Judaism because we believe our culture comes from heaven) just as it is impossible to give up british citizenship no matter how many other times one is naturalized in other countries, the same view is adopted by Halakha on being Jewish.

If you don't like the wording fair enough then change it but what I wrote is accurate and informative so I don't understand your reasons for ommitting them. If you are a reform jew you must try to see beyond your interpretations of the world and simply report the facts. You cannot call Messianics apostate without accepting that you are too. Why don't you come on over to more solid ground. All the best

Zestauferov 11:06, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

• Zestauf: You cannot just arbitrarily "decide" what Reform and Reconstructionism "is" or "is not" with the tendentious goal of inserting "Jews for Jesus" as "merely" another group of "apostates". The sections on the non-Orthodox branches were worked out after much work a long time ago, and you risk antagonizing those contributors and editors who had worked on them when this article first went up over a year ago, and I was not involved with that at all, but I have never tampered with those sections, unlike you who seems determined to do so only so that you can get Christian and Messianic sects included in the main discussions here. In the Judaism section there is already a discussion about Jews for Jesus, it doesn't have to come up here. This article is about "ethnic Jews" and IT DOES SAY THAT MANY ETHNIC JEWS HAVE ASSIMILATED AND CONVERTED TO CHRISTIANITY a number of times. IZAK 14:40, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Izak, don't get emmotional it does not help matters. And don't hurl abuse in an attemt to get me worked up, it will not work because I am not here to fight and cause trouble. I have already mentioned that I was an agnostic secular Jew and I am making teshuvah to the orthodox way.

Thankyou for your comments I am sure they will be well noted. What I am looking for here is objectivity. Perhaps you have never noticed the comment at the bottom of the editing pages "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it." I am not Tampering with anything just excercising my Wiki rights. And when this causes upset then we discuss here on the talk pages in a gentlmanly manner if we are abiding by the wiki policies (that means without terms like tendentious, tampering, using CAPITALIZATION, and refrasing a contributer's comments with a slanting rhetoric -for example I would never use the J word contrary to what your postings seem to infer). There is however one word I have used which I regret. I don't like the term apostate myself (did I bring up that term or did you?) because it means most of my friends and family are apostate (reconstructionist, reform, atheist or other secular "ethnic" Jews). I prefer the term assimilated or better still Ethnic Jews. It is precicely because the article claims to be about Ethnic Jews and includes those who have basically rejected traditional Jewish culture to follow Humanism and yet still call themselves Jews viewing it as a religion (it is not a religion in Halakha, it is only a religion if you are taking the Reform or Reconstructionist POV) are trying to make this entry biased to their perspective by excluding other apostate sects that I think the article still needs some NPOV work on it. If I had my way I would shove all "ethnic Jews" outside Israeli reform (progressive), conservative & orthodox judaism into a section on Assimilated Jews because that is the orthodox stance -albeit put in much more gentle terms. However I am not here to shove my views down everyone's throats, I am only here to say that this article is as of yet far from NPOV and seems to take a heavy Reform stance (excepting Israeli Reform). I realise that Izak obviously considers my edits controvercial and for some reason does not want to accept the had of friendship I have extended to him on his talk page through any reciprocvative response. To each his own I suppose. I have no gripe with him and if I could adjust his accusations into simple statements of fact (which I might do later just to keep this page looking civil & brotherly) then I would agree with the fundamentals of all his points. Anyway to please him and show him that I am not about to start an edit war, I will simply call for NPOV on this matter a little more and if not then I will campaign to get the article labelled with a disputed neutrality notice (in which case I hope that truth and objecitvity will win the campaign not emotional charge).

Izak be nice my friend. If race is ethnicity and ethnicity can be religion then your comments are certainly sounding racist, our people have suffered enough abuse and rejection without getting it from other sects of assimilated Jews too. Shalom. Zestauferov 16:09, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

• Zest: It seems you are intent on defying "conventional wisdom" here, and want to introduce entirely new methods of "classification" that only you will "understand", as those who have worked on this article over time will take exception. This article does NOT take "Reform" a view. It does state Reform views when they are relevant. As I have said, what has been been written in that regard was not done by me, but I think it is unwise to tamper with what they have written. I have a suggestion to make, why don't you succinctly write HERE in "Jew:TALK" what it is that YOU have in mind first, and then see if it fits anywhere! IZAK 23:20, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Why has user Zestauferov created TWO redundent pages Ethnic Jews and Assimilated Jews as a "response" to the Jew article?

User Zestauferov claims on his newly minted Talk:Ethnic Jews and Assimilated Jews (see the related Ger Tzedek): "This page is created in response to the lack of NPOV on the Jew page. Zestauferov 17:18, 11 May 2004 (UTC)". See his comments above. IZAK 23:42, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Chagal oil painting

Sacrifice of Isaac. Oil, Marc Chagall, 1960

Sacrifice of Isaac. Oil, Marc Chagall, 1960

Chagal painting of Abraham and Isaac:

This is far too RELIGIOUSLY-laden a scene from Genesis 22, on the painting, to go with an article about Jews as an ETHNIC group...IZAK 05:01, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Israeli legal definition of a Jew

Is it strictly true to say, as the article now does, "..[T]he modern Israeli legal definition of a Jew excludes those who have joined other religions." I suspect this is untrue on at least one count and perhaps two:

1. I believe that (at most) the issue is renouncing Judaism, not joining another religion. If, for example, as a Jew, I join a Buddhist congregation, but do not renounce my status as a Jew (since Buddhism certainly makes no such demand), I do not believe this has any bearing on how I am legally viewed by the State of Israel.
2. Further -- and especially because this is an article on Jews as an ethnic group, not as a religion -- how does all this relate to the Israeli Law of Return? After all, the Nazis were not slow to persecute ethnic Jews in Austria who were practicing Roman Catholics. Would Israel not recognize people similarly persecuted today as Jews?

If the answer is that I am wrong on these points, I'd sure appreciate sourcing rather than blind assertion. -- Jmabel 06:07, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Then we have the question of whether any government can define a "Jew." Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "The modern Israeli definition of a Jew for purposes of Israeli citizenship"? -- Cecropia 06:27, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In the nearly three weeks since I asked this question there has been massive discussion on this page, but my question remains basically unaddressed. -- Jmabel 00:43, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

• Good point. I suspect that both religion and ethnicity play a role in defining, in many folks' eyes, who is a Jew, and the Israeli government isn't immune to using both religion and ethnicity from time to time. I've heard tell of the denial of entry on the Law of Return of an openly apostate ethnic Jew. Mind if I amend your phrase to "the modern Israeli government's definition of a Jew for purposes of citizenship"? After all, different Israelis might have different definitions of "Jew". Rickyrab 05:20, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

• • Fine, no problem with that edit. -- Jmabel 02:11, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Also, (separate point but a similar issue) the article currently says, "Some Reform Jews view Judaism as a religion alone, and thus they view Jews who convert to another faith as non-Jews." Does anyone have any documentation for Reform Jews claiming that an apostate ceases to be an ethnic Jew? After all ethnicity, not religion, is the subject of this article. I've never encountered such a claim, and I sincerely doubt the truth of this sentence in this context. -- Jmabel 00:53, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

• So? A person can be Jewish by ethnicity and not by religion. When some Jews view Judaism as a religion alone, they view it as not an ethnicity, and so, to them, the term "ethnic Jew" would be an oxymoron. Looks like this view of certain Reform Jews best belongs in the Judaism page, rather than the Jew page. Rickyrab 05:20, 15 May 2004 (UTC)

• • Yes, in the context of the article on Judaism, that sentence would be fine. Again, though, I am a secular ethnic Jew, who grew up in a largely Reform Jewish community, and I never heard anyone question whether I was a Jew on the basis that I was not actively a Jewish believer. It might have been different if, say, I were actively a Christian believer, but that is not what the article says. I am very skeptical that there are any detectable number of Reform Jews who would say that I am not a Jew because I am not a believer, and I would like to see someone back this up with a citation. -- Jmabel 02:11, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

I totally agree, I also tried to change the title Reconstructionis & Reform Judaism to Reconstructionist & Reform Interpretations based upon the same logic, but my edit was reverted. Zestauferov 04:17, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Anan ben David and Karaites as Jews

Who are today's "true" Karaites?

Recently, user User:Yoshiah_ap has been adding material about the Karaites as Jews. Each time I insert material describing the non-Jewish practices of Karaite groups, they are marginalized. IZAK 21:04, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

1) If you're going to post a message, don't cross-post. I don't like to have to post my replies to multiple places. 2) Give an example of one. 3) Shall I start posting about Non-Jewish practices that the Talmudic Rabbis incorporated? 4) Should I start blabbing about the lies that you have made against Karaites, such as that most Jews do not regarding Karaites as Jewish, when the Israeli Cheif Rabbinate made the ruling that not only we are Jews, but that Rabbinical Jews should marry Karaites in order to assimilate them! Besides my user talk and this page, how many other pages have you posted this to?

• Yoshia: I only contacted you on your user talk and here. Sorry if that has confused you, as I only wanted to get your attention.IZAK 07:08, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

• • That's not correct. I've also seen it on I think at least 2 other pages, including the Anan ben David. If you wanted to get my attention, you could have simply left me an email. --Yoshiah ap 01:39, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Yoshiah:The present discussion is only taking place here. Does that mean that you feel "safer" in YOUR one-sided posted postings on this subject all over the web and Wikpedia that you seem to think you "own". This is not about your "personal" beliefs, this is about a big SCHISM in the history of the Jew that split the Jewish people. IZAK 08:56, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

• This is VERY confusing: If you as a Karaite DO NOT ACCEPT the rabbis, so why do you cite those self-same rabbis as "proof" that you are "Jewish"??? Either you are for the (Orthodox) rabbis or against them, but you can't have it both ways: Denigrating and hating them and then foisting rabbinical "rulings and opinions" on others (from any of the other "streams" of Judaism) who may not accept that (Orthodox chief rabbinate) ruling, as NOT ALL JEWS accept the Israeli chief rabbinate of the secular state of Israel. At this point in history, most Jews neither know nor accept the Karaites as they don't even know who they are and that they even "exist". IZAK 07:05, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

• • As we say here in America, take a chill pill. Where are you getting this idea that I hate Rabbinic Jews? I don't hate Rabbinic Jews, my dearest sister is a "Rabbinical" Jew. Answer that question, and then I'll answer the rest of yours. --Yoshiah ap 01:39, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Yoshiah: Again, you are "personalizing" this subject far too much. This is not about our siblings and how much we do or don't love them (which "proves" nothing in a forum of analyzing and explaining something that happened in Jewish history). Your sister may be a lovely person as you are no doubt too, but so what? Stick to the subject. The question is: Why do you praise the Israeli Orthodox rabbis when at the same time you go about besmirching all the other Orthodox rabbis throughout time who believe/d the same things that the Israeli Chief rabbis maintain? So which is it? IZAK 08:56, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Who is User:Yoshiah_ap representing as he needs to have a NPOV about Karaites

JUST WHO ARE THE "KARAITES" that User:Yoshiah_ap is "representing"? IZAK 21:04, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

What is an NPOV? I know that POV = Point of View. And, I am a Karaite. If you don't believe it check out my webpage.

• Yoshiah: FYI: A "NPOV" on Wikipedia means "Neutral Point of View", thus it is exactly BECAUSE you claim to be a Karaite, that you must NOT expect that people should accept your opinions which may NOT be "neutral" from a detached objective scholarly perspective as you are very EMOTIONALLY over-invested in your subject and therefore you may not be open to other "neutral" opinions on the subject of Karaism... That you have your own private website on Karaism is TOTALLY meaningless and irrelevant, as it is not a requirement, neither a plus nor minus, in fact it means nothing on Wikipedia. IZAK 06:53, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

• • Thanks for the definitions. Are you honestly suggesting that I am not a Karaite? If so, I'll be glad to meet you when I visit Jersualem to disproove that. Or would you like some paperwork from Karaite leaders? Carefully read this paraphrase of what you just said: it is exactly BECAUSE you claim to be a Rabbinate, that you must NOT expect that people should accept your opinions which may NOT be "neutral" from a detached objective scholarly perspective as you are very EMOTIONALLY over-invested in your subject and therefore you may not be open to other "neutral" opinions on the subject of Karaism... Also, when you have a website that promote one teaching or another, it sorta backs up your claim that you believe in such and such a thing.

Yoshiah: Again, you are falling victim to over-personalization of the role of contributors to Wikipedia. We are all entitled to our personal beliefs in an open society. However, nowhere on Wikipedia have I said that I am a "Rabbinate", whatever that is, since that word is not in common English usage. On the other hand, it is YOU who constantly reminds us that you are a "Karaite" and that, that somehow "entitles" you or means that you "have to be accepted" by the world at large as "THE" "VOICE" of Karaites on Wikipedia and the Internet. IZAK 09:13, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

---

How many "real" Karaites are alive today: Numbers please!

Another problem is that User:Yoshiah_ap is making the Karaites sound like a large group. Just how big is the Karaite movement TODAY? Five thousand? Ten thousand? Or what? IZAK 21:04, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

Look before you leap. You also posted this question to my User Talk Page, which already has your answer. I have *NEVER* tried to say that we are a big group today. I said that during what is known as the Golden Age of Karaism, we comprised 40% of Jewry - that's the number given by Rabbinical Sources. And it was back in the middle ages. In the future, please do not put words in my mouth.

• Yoshiah: Yes, I did subsequently see that you claim that there are "30,000" Karaites in Israel. But what does that figure mean exactly? Practicing Karaites? "True believers"? "Religious" or "secular" ones? Would THEY all agree with being classed as "Karaites", and if not why not? IZAK 07:17, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

• • Yes, they would all agree on being classified as Karaites. If you don't believe me, I invite you to visit the Old Karaite Synagogue in Jerusalem.

Yoshiah: Numbers please! You have still not given any (estimated or rough) population figures for just how small the Karaites really are to today! IZAK 04:25, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Wikipedia says:Anan ben David's true role: He praised Islam and Christianity

Furthermore User:Yoshiah_ap says that it is incorrect to say that Anan ben David is the founder of Karaism, but when it is said that Anan ben David venerated Islam, it is a "lie" and asks for sources.

Well (and I hope that User:Yoshiah_ap will not now dash off and change the Anan ben David page) it says on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anan_ben_David

"Anan Ben David opposed this move, and along with his followers he proclaimed himself the antiexilarch. This step was construed by the Muslim authorities as rebellion against the authority of the calif, who had formally invested Josiah with the position. Such an act on the part of a dhimmi (follower of a religion tolerated by Islam) in a Muslim state was a capital offense.

When Anan's proclamation of himself as exilarch became known, he was arrested by the authorities one Sunday in 767, and thrown into prison, to be executed on the ensuing Friday, as guilty of high treason. Luckily for Anan, he met in jail a prominent fellow-prisoner, the founder of the Muslim casuistic school of the Hanifites, al-Nu'man ibn Thabit, surnamed Abu Ḥanifah. He gave Ana Ben David advice which saved his life: He should set himself to expound all ambiguous precepts of the Torah in a fashion opposed to the traditional interpretation, and make this principle the foundation of a new religious sect. He must next get his partizans to secure the presence of the calif himself at the trial — his presence not being an unusual thing at the more important prosecutions. Anan was to declare that his religion was quite a different one from that of his brother and of the rabbinical Jews, and that his followers entirely coincided with him in matters of religious doctrine; which was an easy matter for Anan to say, because the majority of them were opposed to the rabbis.

Ben David and his friends complied with this advice, and in the presence of the calif Almansur (754-775) Anan defended himself. Moreover, Anan won for himself the favor of the calif by his deep veneration for Muhammad as the prophet of the Arab peoples, and by the declaration that his new religion, in many ways was similar to Islam.

Anan now devoted himself to the development of his new religion and its new code. His Sefer ha-Mitzvot ("The Book of the Precepts") was published about 770.

Anan Ben David adopted many principles and opinions of other anti-rabbinic forms of Judaism that had previously existed. He took much from the old Sadducees and Essenes, whose remnants still survived, and whose writings—or at least writings ascribed to them—were still in circulation. Thus, for example, these older sects prohibited the burning of any lights and the leaving of one's dwelling on the Sabbath; they also enjoined the actual observation of the new moon for the appointment of festivals, and the holding of the Pentecost festival always on a Sunday.

From the Isawites and the Yudganites immediately preceding this epoch, he borrowed the recognition and justification of Jesus as the prophet for the followers of Christianity, and of Muhammad for those of Islam; in this way ingratiating himself with professors of those creeds." IZAK 21:04, 2 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Rebuttal concerning Anan ben David

1) Anybody can make a wikipedia page. Citing a wikipedia page does not proove anything. I am asking for an actual historical source. I have the four oldest accounts of Anan ben David. 3 of those are Rabbinical, and one of those is from Ya'acov Al-Kirkisani, a famous Karaite Sage.

2) Veneration of Christianity and Islam is nowhere to be found in the four oldest accounts of Anan ben David. Considering the oldest of those four accounts was written over 800 years after the death of Anan, serious questions about the accuracy of it's account and that of later sources must be answered.

Here is what a 12th century Rabbinic account says:

"He (Anan) said, "The religion of my brother employs a calender based upon caculation of the time of the new moon and intercalation of leap years by cycles, whereas mind depends upon actual observation of the new moon and intercalation regulated by the ripening of new grain." Since the king's religion likewise employed the latter method, Anan thus gained his favor and good will."

• Yoshiah: The (Talmudic) rabbis were always careful with their words. They were careful not to "incriminate" themselves in the Middle Ages at a time when Islam and Chritianity were the most powerful doctrines of the times. The words you have given here YOURSELF, prove that the rabbis viewed Anan's arguments as CONNECTING with the Islamic king, as you quote: "Since the king's religion likewise employed the latter method, Anan thus gained his favor and good will." Anyone familiar with the SUBTLE writing style of the ancient rabbis will immediately recognize the fact that the message here is that "Anan and the Islamic king connected", in contradistinction to the fact that "the rabbis and Anan did NOT connect", which is NO praise in the context of the constant, fierce, unyielding condemnation of Karaism, or Ananism, by the rabbis.IZAK 07:48, 4 May 2004 (UTC) throughout history.

• • Sometimes they were, sometimes they weren't. The text says that the Caliph favored Anan because he adhered to the biblical practice of basing his calender on the sightings of the New Moons, like his religion did. At best, it is a far stretch to say that the account says he recognized Anan as a prophet. At worst, your claim is an aarogant propaganda intented to spread lies about a person.

Yoshiah: Since you yourself maintain that Anan ben David was an "Ananite" and "NOT" a Karaite at all and was denounced by the Karaite leader (Kirkistani I think you mentioned):

• So why do you get so worked up when Anan is characterized as a devious religious opportunist perhaps like the "reverend" Jim Jones or David Koresh, cult leaders concerned more about their own egos than about the welfare and life of their followers? IZAK 10:13, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
  • I've already answered that question. If you claim that he founded Karaism, claims about what he did or did not do will automatically be linked with Karaism.

Yoshiah: I fail to see your logic. You say that you "defend" Anan ben David so that things that are said about him will NOT get associated with Karaism. This is a VERY peculiar "argument" don't you think? By the same token then, should Jews "defend" the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" because most anti-Semites associate the "Protocols" with "Jews"? You therefore must agree that it makes no sense logically to "defend" Anan in order to "fend off" attacks on Karaism that may or may not result from it. Logic and fairness would dictate that you reject him because he does "not" speak for Karaism, or he is an embarrassment to Karaism. Which is it? IZAK 04:55, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

• It would seem according to rational logic, that if Anan cared for the Jews, he would NOT have led a "reverse Exodus" taking followers away from the religion of his ancestors, don't you think? IZAK 10:13, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Arguing this would be arguing theology, and that's not what Wikipedia was here for.

Yoshiah: NO! We are talking about POST-theological consequences, about how this effected the Jews as an ethnicity. What Anan ben David did (with whatever "theological rationales") RESULTED in a definite SPLIT and SCHISM in the Jewish people in effect creating a DIFFERENT GROUP of people, many of whom subsequently lost contact with the main body of the Jewish people and who even opted NOT to be called Jews at all, such as the Turkic Karaites for example. So what started as a "religious" issue ended up as an ethnic "reality". IZAK 04:55, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

• Why was Anan ben David deemed unfit for leadership by his own rabbinic contemporaries in the first place? IZAK 10:13, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
• Again remember that these are ACADEMIC hypothetical discussions. IZAK 10:13, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
  • This is another topic that would get into a theological argument. Simply, he disagreed with Rabbinic teachings.

Yoshiah: Again, NO! This cannot be waived off as a "theological argument" because it was NOT simply about religion. It was ALSO about Anan ben David's rage and fury at being rejected for the Exilarch lay leadership position by the rabbinical heads who chose his younger brother instead. It seems the rabbis were already aware of his negative attitudes BEFORE he "decided" to create his own "new" fateful "religion" resulting in the eventual schism between those who became his disciples and those who remained loyal to the rabbis.IZAK 04:55, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

• This is NOT a "CHAT ROOM" getting flooded with emotions, rather we are attempting to arrive at an understanding of someone who founded Karaism according to most scholars, or a cult called "Ananism" by the Karites themselves. So which is it? IZAK 09:30, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Then as I said, take a chill pill. You've tried to claim that I hate Rabbis and Rabbinic Judaism, a claim that is absolutely false.--Yoshiah ap 19:46, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Yoshiah: This is not about "me" or "you". This is about the schism in the Jewish people that resulted after Karaism was founded, THEY are the ones who definitely have negative attitudes to the rabbis. I know nothing about your personal attitudes beyond what you claim for yourself. IZAK 04:55, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

3) No one questions that Anan used other sources for his religion. He used Rabbinical Interperetation methods and his beliefs were almost the same of Rabbinic Judaism. In fact, Ya'acov Al-Kirkisani wrote:

"Hay, the president of the Rabbinate Academny, together with his father, tranlsated the book of Anan from the Aramaic into Hebrew with his father and encountered nothing in it of which they could not discover the source in Rabbinate Lore."

Now, do you have any sources for your claims, or not?

• Yoshiah: What do you mean by "No one questions that Anan used other sources for his religion"? QUESTION/S: What are these "other sources"? If it was Islam or Christianity, why don't you say so openly? Are you "justifying" the fact that Anan adopted Islamic and Christian doctrines with the claim that he also (equally?) used "Rabbinical (Judaism) Interperetation methods"? Did Anan have a (religious) moral conscience or was he an "equal opportunity" twister of all religions to suit his won personal needs and ends out of hate and spite for the rabbis? And finally, if you claim to be a "Karaite" and not an "Ananite" so then why are you so emotionally invested in "protecting" Anan yourself as it makes no sense to present favorable arguments on behalf of someone you claim to reject, unless there is something that you are hiding for whatever reason? IZAK 07:48, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

• • IZAK : 1) I mean just that. Everyone knows he used the writings of other Jewish sects in basing his beliefs. Almost all of it could be traced to Rabbinate beliefs. 2) About Anan - we know very little about him. The older the source about him, the more fanciful it gets (from all perspectives) 3)Because many Rabbinates like yourself say that Anan ben David is the founder of Karaism, and thus will use him to level attacks against us. Some Rabbinates even make the claims that we worship Mohammed - and these sort of lies disgust me. Is there something you are hiding, IZAK?

• Yoshiah: Please use correct current understandable English words. There is no such word in use as a "Rabbinate/s" when talking about a private person (like me or you). The word "Rabbinate" with an "upper-case" (capital) "R" usually refers to the name of an "institution" such as the the "Chief Rabbinate of Israel", sometimes shortened to the "Rabbinate". The word "rabbinate", with a "lower-case" ("small") "r" means the "professional field" that rabbis work in which is called the "rabbinate". To call another person a "Rabbinate" or even a "rabbinate" without even knowing who they are (I may not even be a real person :-) is both inaccurate and a sign of desperation. In SCHOLARLY circles there is reference to "rabbinical" Jews, the ones who have had their "religious status" derived from having been the followers of the rabbis (and not of the "rabbinate"). The known and commonly used names and categories are Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, religious, secular, Israeli... IZAK 09:44, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

• • Actually, the term "Rabbinate" has also been used to describe an adherant of Rabbinic Judaism, just as "Karaite" is used to describe an adherant of Karaite Judaism.--Yoshiah ap 19:46, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Yoshiah: Never heard this before. Where is this done today? IZAK 04:55, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Rabbinical opposition to Anan, the Karaites, and Karaism

• The Karaites: Challengers of Rabbinic Authority:

"...The major rabbinic opponent of the Karaites was Saadia Gaon. He issued articles, letters, and responsa attacking the doctrine of the Karaites, and even declared that they were not Jews...Saadia successfully defended rabbinic authority against the Karaite philosophical invasion...According to Rabbinic law, Karaites are considered heretical Jews; they were treated as Jews in every country they lived in until the eighteenth century, when Russia annexed Poland. Catherine the Great then declared that Karaites were exempt from the double tax for Jews. From that time to the present, European countries, including Nazi Germany, distinguished the Karaites as non-Jews..." IZAK 08:44, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

• • Actually, if it weren't for Saadia, we might have died out. His attacks on us brought us more converts from Rabbinism than we had ever seen before. So much for a successfull defense --Yoshiah ap 02:07, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

• Yoshiah: Uniting yourself with the Karaites in a personal fashion and talking about yourself as "us" meaning the Karaites (vs. the "Rabbinate" meaning "them") is very revealing, unfortunate and clear proof that when it comes to this subject, you have NOT mastered the Wikipedia art and practice of NPOV. IZAK 10:04, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

• • IZAK : This is no different than speaking about yourself as an Orthodox Jew.

Yoshiah: Nowhere do I talk of "Us" vs. "them", whereas you do it constantly. Again: PLEASE refrain from personalizing discusions, writings, and editing on Wikipedia, as it is most unbecoming of mature dispassionate critical scholarship. IZAK 05:25, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

• Islamic Culture 750-1095: Abbasid Caliphate 750-945:

...When the Jewish Exilarch Solomon died in 761, the Geonim leaders, Judah the Blind at Sora and Dudai at Pumbeditha, prevented Anan ben David from succeeding by choosing his younger brother Chananya. Anan rejected the Judaism of the Talmud and wanted to return to a strict adherence to the Bible, which had recently been made more available to non-scholars by adding a system of vowel points. The followers of Anan called themselves Karaites and their adversaries Rabbanites, meaning "partisans of authority." Anan was put in prison, but he was released by the Caliph when he claimed that he was not a rebel against Judaism but the founder of a new religion. After the time of Anan the Exilarchate was no longer hereditary; but the presidents of the academies directed the election of the Exilarch..." IZAK 08:44, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

• PDF document http://www.bfbs.org.uk/documents/Masoretes.pdf

"The Masoretes and the Punctuation of Biblical Hebrew": "...(Page 6):...In the second half of the eighth century the ruling Caliph refused to confirm the succession Anan ben David, choosing instead his younger brother. Anan's reaction was to set up a "new religion" which, he claimed, was a compromise between Judaism and Islam...his followers, at first called Ananites adopted the name Karaites (properly Quaraites, from the Hebrew verb to read) These 'Bible readers' coined the term Rabbinites for those who followed the authority of the Talmud..." IZAK 08:44, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

• • Sources please. Cite a single writing of Anan that uses the term Karaite. That fact is, you won't find one. Also, are you aware that the Masoretic Text was written by Karaites? (The Karaite Ben Asher Family, to be exact)

Yoshiah: There has ALWAYS been more than "one" form of Karaism: SEE: http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t10/ht110.htm "After Anan's death Saul, his son, succeeded him as exilarch of the Karaites, but Anan's disciples separated from him, as they did not agree with him about some ceremonies, according to Saul's interpretation of biblical passages. They became a distinct sect calling themselves Ananites; so it also happened after the death of Saul, who was succeeded by Josiah, his son. And so almost every age sprang a new Karaite sect with a name of its own, each interpreting Scripture in its own way. Some of them will be mentioned presently, It is self-evident that an attempt to get at the profound meaning of the Scriptures was the business of every such sect; through their activity the knowledge of Hebrew grammar, of Massorah, the vowel-points and punctuation marks, was diffused; theological philosophizing was also not strange to some Karaites, as they had to explain such words as God's "hand," "eye," "finger," which they were unwilling to take literally and materialize God, just as the other Jews. Thus gradually a large literature sprang among the Karaites, not inferior, taken as a whole, to the Talmud itself in bulk." IZAK 06:49, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

IZAK, make up your mind. Are you here to speak truthfully about Karaism, or simply to spread false propaganda about Karaism?--Yoshiah ap 02:07, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

• Yoshiah: Take a close look and you will see that I am NOT citing my "own" opinions. This is not about "you" and "me". I am quoting reliable open sources researched on the Internet with the links provided. The past cannot be "undone" by emotional shrieks that the Karaites are "getting a bad rap". The fact remains that they split off from the body of the Jews and chose to create a break-away religion. They have only themselves to blame for the fact that they dwindled over time and have become just a side-note to present day Judaism of any stream. Religious schisms are complex affairs and those who cause them must carry the responsibity. Our job is to look critically at what happened and not to get emotionally involved defending Anan ben David and his doomed religious movement. That's the difference beween dispassionate, yet critical, scholarship and propaganda,(you seem to take any critique as propaganda, why?) IZAK 09:56, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

• • IZAK: You have not provided a real source for any claim you have made. I have the manuscripts that were recorded about Anan ben David. My only request has been that you cite a source manuscript for you claims. Stop making this more than this is, and simply provide a source. I have all the sources up to 800 years after the death of Anan, and they mention nothing that you claim.

Yoshiah: I cannot fathom your logic again. You claim that since in his own lifetime Anan ben David did "not" use the term "Karaite",(because as you claim, no "manuscripts" of his time show that Anan or others used that term about him) therefore "he" is "not" a "Karaite" because neither he nor people who knew him called him a "Karaite", and so therefor what he said, did, and taught in promoting Biblical "literalism" and ferociously rejecting and denigrating "Rabbinism" should be categorized as "Ananism" and not "Karaism" (even though the net HISTORICAL result of his activities seem no different to what is known as Karaism to most scholars). Allow me to say that this would be like saying that since Karl Marx (whose parents were Jews who had become Christians) "wrote" about communism but in his lifetime was NOT known as a "communist" and the communist movement had not taken hold yet in his lifetime, but he was better known as a radical political journalist and writer in his own lifetime, should therefore be known "ONLY" as a "Journalistic Marxist" and "not" as a "communist" even though he popularized the IDEAs and NOTIONS that EQUAL "Communism" in historical development, in his writings. The point is undeniable, that just as Marx's writings and teachings about Communism contributed to its rise and popularity, similarly, Anan ben David's KNOWN teachings and writings (whatever he or others called them in his days) contributed to the rise of Karaism. Do you follow? IZAK 05:25, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Summarizing the "dispute" over Karaism

This dispute centers over a few questions:

1) What, exactly, did Anan do?

• He petitioned the Muslim authorities so that Non-Rabbinic Jews would not have to be accountable to the Rabbinic Laws. Where he lived, they could be prosecuted for not following Rabbinic Halakha.--Yoshiah ap 20:12, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Yoshiah: Is that "all" that Anan ben David did? He just "petitioned" the Muslims? Makes it sound like a modern-day tame voter-registration drive. Anan ben David launched ALL OUT WAR against his fellow Jews: See the original Wikipedia article for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anan_ben_David See also as an example of the scope of Anan's doings: http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t10/ht110.htm THE HISTORY OF THE TALMUD: CHAPTER VII: THE EIGHTH CENTURY. THE DOMINION OF THE GAONIM. THE OPPOSITION OF THE KARAITES. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SECT OF THAT NAME:

• "...This man was Anan ben David, nephew of the exilarch Solomon, in Bagdad, who had died childless. Anan expected to be elected as his successor, but his younger brother was chosen instead, and he was rejected because of his liberal ideas and want of sympathy with the Talmud. Then he publicly began to make war on the Talmud and Talmudists, and became the head of all its opponents and ill-wishers. He made his headquarters at Jerusalem, after having been, it seems, obliged to leave Babylonia. There he assumed the title of exilarch, and around him were assembled a great multitude who made, war on the Oral Law, its scholars, and in particular on the two colleges of Sura and Pumbeditha."IZAK 06:32, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

• "By his general precept, "Search well in the Scriptures," he declared as naught the whole Oral Law. And wishing to find favor in the eyes of the Caliphs, who fixed the dates of their festivals by observation of the new moon, he also renewed this custom, once in force among the Jews while the Temple had existed, repealing thus the calculation of R. Adda received among all Talmudists. He openly said to the Caliph Almanzur that the Jews had been guilty of persecuting Jesus and opposing Mahomet, though (said he) both these men did much to drive idolatry out of existence, and cannot be attacked without guilt. Of the first he said that he had been a holy man who did not want to appear as a prophet, or a god, but only desired to reform the faith which the Pharisees had perverted. Of the second he said that be really was a prophet for the Arabs, only he does not believe that the Law (of Moses) is repealed by Mahommedanism.IZAK 06:32, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

• "His first work was to separate himself from the Jews by fixing the date of Pentecost to be fifty days after the first Sabbath after Passover, as the Sadducees fixed it formerly. The dates of New Year and the Day of Atonement, Passover and the Feast of Booths were determined by watching for the new moon, which did not agree with the Jewish dates. As in the leap year one month is added to the year, he allowed, in case of need, to begin Passover when barley is ripe in the fields. The Phylacteries (not a grave ceremony among the Jews, at any rate), the four species of the Lulab and the semi-holiday Hanuka (Dedication), he abolished. On the other hand he made the observation of Sabbath more burdensome, so that the lighting of candles was prohibited on the eve of Sabbath, even by a non-Jew, also the leaving of one's house during Sabbath when most neighbors are not Jews, i.e. Karaites; the dietary laws he also made stricter, so as to prohibit his adherents eating in company with Jews for the latter are not careful enough and oftentimes eat with Gentiles."IZAK 06:32, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

• "Soon Anan saw that if every one were left to interpret the Biblical text according to his own mind, etc., his sect would be split, and not endure (as actually was the case in the course of time, as will be explained further on), and that a fixed commentary is needed at least for those passages which can by no means be interpreted literally. Therefore he claimed many great authorities, long deceased, as Karaites, and declared that R. Jehuda b. Tabai, the colleague of Simeon b. Shetah, etc. Shamai the elder, the colleague of Hillel the Elder, and other such, were some of the founders of their sect, and he ascribed to them some interpretations of passages which he claimed to have received by tradition from them. "Abandon the Talmud and Mishna," he said to his followers, "and I will make you a Talmud of my own, according to the traditions I have." Though in reality he took the rules of the Mishna as basis, yet he said that as far as details are concerned he is as wise as the sages of the Mishna, or more so, and can construe the Biblical texts by his own intellect."IZAK 06:32, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

• "His hatred of the Talmud became so great that he said that if he could have swallowed the Talmud, he would cast himself into a lime-kiln, that it might be burned with him and leave no vestige of its existence. Thus the people of Israel separated itself then into two hostile hosts. The Talmudists declared the Karaites not to be Jews, and forbade to give them any holy ceremony to perform, while the Karaites said of the followers of the rabbis that they are Jewish sinners, and it is sinful to intermarry with them. The city of Jerusalem witnessed for the third time a splitting of Israel into parties." IZAK 06:32, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

2) Is there any possible way to find out what Anan did, exactly?

• I can provide the four oldest accounts of Anan ben David in English if it'd help. 3 are of Rabbinic origin, one of Karaite origin. Considering that the oldest of these was written 800 years after the death of Anan, I would question the reliability of any older accounts.--Yoshiah ap 20:12, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

See above, from: http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t10/ht110.htm THE HISTORY OF THE TALMUD: CHAPTER VII: THE EIGHTH CENTURY. THE DOMINION OF THE GAONIM. THE OPPOSITION OF THE KARAITES. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SECT OF THAT NAME IZAK 07:16, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

3) What is a Karaite? Is Karaism a religion distinct from Judaism?

Hi Rickyrab (Rickyrab): I have already cited some sources from a web-search above, anyone can read more if they have the time:

• The issue of "Karaism" vis-a-vis Judaism, and the historicity of Anan ben David in fomenting the "Karaite" movement is not "my" "personal" hobby-horse at all as it is a well-worn path.IZAK 08:37, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
• Of Judaism's approximate 14,000,000 million "adherents" today (by "birth" or by "belief") it would be fair to say that there may be a literal "few thousand" who openly acknowledge being Karaites or adherents of Karaism. It may be a case of "much ado about nothing" as history has already given its verdict: Karaism may have had it's day/s in the sun, but by now it is a mere foot-note in the annals of modern Jewish history.IZAK 08:37, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
• The question is NOT what "IZAK" or "Yoshiah" "believe" or "feel" about the subject of Karaism as it is FAR TOO BIG A SUBJECT that has been around for a long time and is very clear and well known.IZAK 08:37, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
• One does not have to cite esoteric "ancient texts", you can research the subject on the Internet to learn that all branches of Judaism always rejected Karaism as a "belief system" while at the same time individual "Karaites" may have been accepted back into the Jewish community if they renounced the Karaite doctrines which is what the purpose of the present Chief Rabbinate may or may not be.IZAK 08:37, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
• The Chief Rabbinate of Israel NEVER SAID that KARAISM IS "kosher", on the contrary, Karaism remains a paradoxical and confused religious movement DISTINCT from "normative" Judaism because (just a few obvious contradictions that come up):IZAK 08:37, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

• A Karaite is a "sola scripturala" (sp?) Jew. In other words, a Karaite Jew accepts the entire Hebrew bible as being authorative in his life, but does not accept the Talmud as being binding.--Yoshiah ap 20:12, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Yoshiah: You are evading a more serious presentation. Question: What if a Karaite says that he is NOT a Jew but just a "Karaite", unlike your definition that starts off with the incorrect assumption that all Karaites are "Karaite Jews" which is just not true, as many Karaites have claimed openly over the course of history that they are not "Jews" even though they may observe parts of the Torah and keep some of the Jewish festivals in some fashion. IZAK 07:56, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

4) Is Izak "emotionally invested" in Anan, and is that a good thing or a bad thing?

• I think he is because he has resorted to claiming that I hate Rabbis and Rabbinic Judaism, and he has not provided a source for his claims. --Yoshiah ap 20:12, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Yoshiah:No "personal" statements have been said against you or anyone else. We are having an open-minded intellectual serious DEBATE about Karaism. There seems to be a misunderstanding about what is happening due to the constant personal references you make to yourself and about how you IMAGINE others may "feel" about you, which is maybe just a smokescreen for dealing with the subject in a forthright manner as befits Wikipedia.IZAK 06:45, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

• • Hi everyone. Wouldn't it be safe to say that if this this person is a Karaite, that he would know if a certain person founded a his religion or not? Given that he/she is a Karite, and that he/she can refer to actual manuscripts to back up his/her position, I'd be slightly more inclined to believe him/her about what Karaites believe. It's obvious to me that they're both a bit emotionally involved, but it seems to me that an Orthodox Jew telling a person what a Karaite Jew believes would be like a Southern Baptist Minister telling a person what a Mormon Missionary believes. There is bound to be some errors because of the absolute opposition between the two. --65.122.112.41 23:44, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Now, I don't know what Anan did, but he did it a long time ago, so... it's hard to come to a conclusion without accounting for confusion and the passage of time. As for your controversies over the issues, perhaps we ought to come to a compromise, in which Izak can state his views and reasons for such views, and Yoshia can state his views and reasons, and the final article can take the most likely items to be the truth - or items that both sides agree on more than other items - and that could approximate a NPOV. Building a true NPOV will take plenty of work on the Karaism issue, though. Rickyrab 05:46, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

• My only request is that IZAK provide a source for his claims. They are not to be found in any accounts of Anan within 800 years of his death. --Yoshiah ap 20:12, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

--Yoshiah ap 02:40, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Is Karaism Judaism and does it belong with the article on Jew?

Hi Rickyrab (Rickyrab): I have already cited some sources from a web-search above, anyone can read more if they have the time:

• The issue of "Karaism" vis-a-vis Judaism, and the historicity of Anan ben David in fomenting the "Karaite" movement is not "my" "personal" hobby-horse at all as it is a well-worn path.IZAK 08:37, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
• Of Judaism's approximate 14,000,000 million "adherents" today (by "birth" or by "belief") it would be fair to say that there may be a literal "few thousand" who openly acknowledge being Karaites or adherents of Karaism. It may be a case of "much ado about nothing" as history has already given its verdict: Karaism may have had it's day/s in the sun, but by now it is a mere foot-note in the annals of modern Jewish history.IZAK 08:37, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
  • To say that there only a few thousand Karaites in existence is at best a lie. --Yoshiah ap 20:35, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Fact: Karaites exist. Fact: They practice something called "Karaism", and apparently they are perpetuating Karaism. Who cares how many there are, so long as Karaism goes on?

Rickyrab 21:34, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

• The question is NOT what "IZAK" or "Yoshiah" "believe" or "feel" about the subject of Karaism as it is FAR TOO BIG A SUBJECT that has been around for a long time and is very clear and well known.IZAK 08:37, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Then why do you insinuate that I hate the Rabbis and Rabbinic Judaism? --Yoshiah ap 20:35, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
    • Probably because Izak might have only been thinking (at the time he stated his view of the question) about how Yoshiah feels about Karaism, while at the time he made his insinuation, he was thinking about how Yoshiah feels about Rabbinic Judaism. Rickyrab 21:34, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
• One does not have to cite esoteric "ancient texts", you can research the subject on the Internet to learn that all branches of Judaism always rejected Karaism as a "belief system" while at the same time individual "Karaites" may have been accepted back into the Jewish community if they renounced the Karaite doctrines which is what the purpose of the present Chief Rabbinate may or may not be.IZAK 08:37, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
  • I can safely say one thing: Reform Judaism wouldn't reject Karaism as a "belief system". I'm pretty sure Karaitic practice would be acceptable within the bounds of Reform Judaism! Rickyrab 21:34, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
  • I've only asked you to cite a source. Even a Rabbinic Source. Rabbinic claims about Karaism on the web have many errors, and confuse us with other middle age sects of Judaism. It is such a problem that Congregation Orah Saddiqim has four pages dedicated to correcting these. For example, one says that we have attacked the Masoretic Text, when the Karaite Ben Asher family were the ones who produced it, another claims how it is forbidden to don tefillin in a certain way - that is even more bogus because we do not don Teffillin. If Izak wants to include fanciful accounts written over a millenia after the death of Anan ben David, then I will also include the fanciful accounts of a Rabbinic Assasination attempt on him. But I'd rather keep to reliable, accurate accounts.
• The Chief Rabbinate of Israel NEVER SAID that KARAISM IS "kosher", on the contrary, Karaism remains a paradoxical and confused religious movement DISTINCT from "normative" Judaism because (just a few obvious contradictions that come up):IZAK 08:37, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
  • I never claimed that he said Karaism was "kosher". I have said that he said that Karaites were Jewish, and that Observant Orthodox Jews should marry Karaites in an attempt to assimilate Karaites into Rabbinic Judaism. I can provide the source if you'd like, in both Hebrew and English. --Yoshiah ap 20:35, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

• • Y'know what some Jews say about Jews: "with three Jews, you get four opinions". An Orthodox rabbi noting that there are Jews who don't practice "Judaism" is nothing new. Rickyrab 21:34, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

• • • The reason I made mention of it is because Izak attempted to make it look like Karaites are not Jews. Instead of trying to argue it, I simply reffered to one of his authorities. --Yoshiah ap 02:40, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

(1)It seeks to renounce Orthodox rabbis at the same time that it wants their legitimization of itself. If they reject the rabbis so why now do they accept them? So which is it?

• As you had implied that Karaites are not Jews, I simply reffered to one of your Authorities as anything else would not be considered valid by yourself.--Yoshiah ap 20:35, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
  • They want to make peace with the Orthodoxim, but as a separate entity with their own rules. They want to cut down on the backbiting. Rickyrab 20:44, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

(2)Karaism rejects Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism by claiming to be "closer" to Orthodox Judaism at the same time that it rejects the views of Orthodox Judaism. So which is it?

• We are closer to Orthodox Judaism in the fact that we accept all the Mitzvot as binding.--Yoshiah ap 20:35, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Neither. Karaism is its own movement, with its own ideas on how to be properly religious. Rickyrab 20:44, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

(3)Some modern adherents declare that Karaism "rejects" the status of the Talmud (as held by the Orthodox) and therefore makes it sound that it is similar in some ways to Reform Judaism and Conservative Judaism who also view the Talmud differently to the Orthodox, yet at the same time claiming that Karaism accepts the written Torah which the Reform and Conservative DO NOT view as God-given. So which is it?

• We have always rejected the Talmud as binding. Reform Judaism rejects the existence of God entirely --Yoshiah ap 20:35, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Reform Judaism holds that the Torah was written by folks, but inspired by God. It does NOT reject the existence of God!!! If you want proof of this, go look into our prayerbook, Gates of Prayer. I am not sure if the Conservatives hold this view, or the Reconstructionists, for that matter.Rickyrab 20:44, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

• • • My apologies - I really worded that wrong. Most of the Reform Jews I've known didn't believe in God, and I was mixing the two. Sorry 'bout that.--Yoshiah ap 02:40, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

• • • • Apology accepted. Rickyrab 05:33, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

(4)Karaism has a record of claiming to be similar to an Islam (which is based on the Qur'an) yet claims that it also is "ONLY" based on the "LITERAL" Jewish Bible which forbids association with other religions (as stated in the Ten Commandments: "I am the Lord your God...you shall not have any other Gods before me..."). So which is it?

• Considering that when the Temple was standing the Pharisees and every other sect of Judaism also went by the observation of the New Moon, as is called for in the Torah, your attack is baseless. The difference in the Hillel II calender is that it is based on predictions of when the New Moon will be, rather than the actual observation.--Yoshiah ap 20:35, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Not all Bible-adhering monotheists consider the Muslims' God to be different from the God of the Jews. Some would say upfront that Allah is the same divinity as HaShem, or God. From that point of view, similarity to Islam need not be written off as "associations with other religions". Rickyrab 20:44, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

(5)Some Karaites renounce Anan ben David as being "not a true Karaite" yet he is still praised for his wisdom, "shrewdness", and contributions. So which is it? (6)In retrospect, some Karaites show deep respect and admire the achievements of Anan ben David yet at other times they paint Anan ben David's followers as "Ananites" as if they are "ashamed" of things he did, because if they were proud of him they would not feel the need to label his followers "Ananites" and not "Karaites". So which is it?

• He wasn't a Karaite at all. We respect him only in the same manner you might respect Martin Luther King Jr. --Yoshiah ap 20:35, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
  • One can be a good guy without being a member of your group. Rickyrab 20:44, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
  • Perhaps they have their own ideas of what groups should be named. What can I say? Rickyrab 20:44, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

(7)RABBI Saadia Gaon can objectively be considered to be greater than the secularly-appointed Orthodox "Chief Rabbis" of modern secularly-run Israel. He was the rabban shel kol b'nei hagolah (Rabbi of all the members of the diasporah) a rabbinic and Talmudic leader and scholar par excellence, his writings are still studied, applied and known to this day. He lived during the age of Anan and the initial confrontations between the Karaites and the remaining Jews, and in his writings he states that the Karaites are "not Jews" (see above quote and linkThe Karaites: Challengers of Rabbinic Authority: ). This is a well-known position, and the Israeli Chief rabbinate cannot change that. It is, perhaps, much like the issue of welcoming back the Ethiopian Falashas back into the fold of Judaism in Israel today, as the intention is to "bring back" any "lost Jews". Do Karaites today really think that the Orthodox rabbis of today have "renounced" the views of RABBI Saadia Gaon one of their greatest rabbis whom they revere for his scholarship? What about Karaites who vehemently insist that "they are NOT Jews" (see above quotes and links) are they to be believed or not? So which is it? IZAK 08:37, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

• THat is not correct. Anan was dead before Saadia was born.
  • Some Karaites feel they're Jewish, and others feel they aren't. Likewise, many Orthodoxim feel that the Karaites aren't, but some might feel they are. Definitions of people as Jewish or not, de facto if not de jure, are in the eyes of the beholder. From this vantage point, the Orthodox opinions are understandable, seeing as they consider Saadia Gaon's opinions worth thinking about; likewise, the Karaites' own opinions are also understandable, seeing as they don't follow Rabbi Saadia Gaon. Rickyrab 20:44, 5 May 2004 (UTC)
• Izak, If you'd like I can post the full information about the Karaites who don't say they are Jewish. It's about 4 pages long though.--Yoshiah ap 02:40, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

In spite of common assumptions, is there really more than one Jewish religion?

Conventional wisdome has it that there is only one Jewish religion, and that conventional wisdom is accepted throughout the Jewish world. However, what if Karaism is Jewish, yet is distinct enough to be a religion in its own right? That would put Judaism up there with Christianity as being alleged groups of religions (such as Catholicism, Protestantism, Anabaptism, and so forth).

On the other hand, we Reform Jews do not necessarily follow all Rabbinical laws, but we follow those that make sense to us, after careful study. If the practices of Karaitism/ Karaite Judaism are essentially Jewish, then their lack of allegiance to Rabbinical laws shouldn't take away from Karaites being essentially Jewish. Rickyrab 20:24, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Ricky: What about those Karaites who INSIST that they are NOT "Jews" at all, but "Karaites"? How would you deal with that (them)? (Obviously, "Yoshiah" does not fit into this group, as he claims to be a "Jewish Karaite".) This is all part of the confusion surrounding the question of how Judaism views Karaism. IZAK 07:41, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

• If one would say that Karaites and Karaism are not Jewish, they must by the same logic also classify Reform Jews, Conservative Jews, Secular Jews, the Falashas, etc. as non-Jewish, despite the fact that 85% of Jews are non-Orthodox.

Folks:In this regard see the discussions in the article on Jew and Judaism for a summary of the various groups' defintions of "Who is a Jew?" and "What is Judaism?". The problem with the Karaites is that since there are KNOWN Karaite groups who INSIST that they are NOT Jewish, which throws doubt on other Karaite's claims that they are "Jewish". Who do you believe? After all, if a Reform rabbi would wake up one morning and say he was "not Jewish" any more, but had chosen a gentile "prophet of god", such as Buddha, and would not mind to see his congregants become "Jewish Buddhists" yet still able to observe the Torah since they like it, but as a requirement for membership they must ALWAYS rant against the "big bad Talmud", and 100 years later there is still a cult of his "Jewish Buddhists" around, neither that rabbi nor his subsequebt devotees could be classed as "Jewish" in the traditional historical sense of the word according to ANY stream of Judaism, be it Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, or secular. It would be called a schism at "best" or a new religion at "worst". IZAK 07:36, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

• What's the difference between a schism and a new religion? Besides, what do some "Karaites" mean by their not being "Jewish", and how does their beliefs differ, if at all, from "Jewish Karaites"? Besides, IZAK's argument certainly suggests there is more than one Jewish religion out there, including such syncretic religions as Jewish Buddhism, Jews for Jesus (which we all know to be a bunch of missionaries and not a real religion anyway), etc., etc. Who's to say we can't include Islam under the belt if the definition is broad enough? Rickyrab 05:39, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

The way I am learning it is that the Jewish way of life is like a Gem shared by inheritance. It si in fact impossible to say that we have joint ownership of the gem if we try to fragment it up, because the Gem would be destroyed. Remarkably the Gem is still in tact after more than 3000 years. Anyone can have fun picking & choosing gems which look like parts of our beautiful treasure. But if you have a right to joint ownership in that Gem through heritage, what is the point in boasting about this while having no-intention to lay claim to that inheritance? Zestauferov 06:46, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

• Yeah, the Gem is still intact, even if the Gem looks different in parts from the way it once did (the emergence of Hassidism, the emergence of Reform, the Holocaust, the ensuing stompede from Europe to Israel, etc. all making a contribution to such changes)... I am not sure if the Gem would be utterly destroyed in an attempt to fragment it up, though, as such an attempt would lead to more Gems, albeit smaller ones. However, Gems that are religions tend to grow. (This would explain, for instance, how Christianity got so big and complicated after splintering from Judaism.) Come to think of it, you have a point in noting the lack of a reason to bost about having items of Jewish heritage without actually claiming that those items were once Jewish or had anything to do with Judaism. (Does anyone but me find a similarity between the Jewish blessings after the service on bread and wine and the Christian Eucharist?) Rickyrab 05:37, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

There never was "one" Karaite group in history

See: http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/t10/ht110.htm

THE HISTORY OF THE TALMUD: CHAPTER VII: THE EIGHTH CENTURY. THE DOMINION OF THE GAONIM. THE OPPOSITION OF THE KARAITES. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SECT OF THAT NAME.

"...As their doctrines, however, were not fixed, and as almost every age the Karaites were split into diverse sects, therefore they could not resist or make headway against the Talmud, whose strength is, to those who rightly understand it, that it has never purposed to make fixed rules, to last for all ages; deliberation and reasoning concerning the Halakhas according to the circumstances, is the principle of the Talmud; and the saying of the Talmud, "even when they say to you of right that it is left, and of left that it is right, thou shalt not swerve from the commandment," shows the opinion of the Talmud, that the practice of the ceremonies and precepts is dependent on the time, place and other circumstances. With this power the Talmud combatted all its enemies, and was victorious."IZAK 07:01, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

"The controversies between the Jews and the Karaites are recorded in many books, Karaite and Talmudistic, from the age of R. Saadia the Gaon, and his opponent Sahal ben Matzliah to the present time. In them can also be found the history of their alternate triumphs. But this is not our task here: we will remark only that from the days of R. Saadiah the Gaon, when the Rabbis had begun to have polemics with them, can be seen the deep mark the Karaite literature left on the Rabbinical one. Philosophy was from that time used in conjunction with the Torah; many Gaonim followed R. Saadiah's method of harmonizing the Torah and the philosophy of that time, that they should seem as mutual enemies. So the Karaites charged such men with infidelity, but others were themselves compelled to imitate them, and called in the aid of philosophy, of the divinity, to interpret the texts of the Holy Scriptures."IZAK 07:01, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

"The effect of the Karaites on the Talmudist Rabbis is made evident also in this: that since their time the rabbis also began to write down fixed Halakhas taken from the Talmud, that the readers should not otherwise by error adopt the Karaite rules, made by the Karaite leaders, which they might mistake for the rules of the Talmud itself, since they could not know the whole Talmud by heart. They composed, therefore, the "Halakhoth G'doloth" (Great Halakhas), "Sh'iltoth'derab A'bai" (Queries of R. Ahai), for the sake of the students, who could not themselves wade through the whole Talmud. But thereby they opposed the spirit and object of the Talmud itself, that the Halakhas should be matter for discussion, and modified in accordance with the requirements of the time and place. As soon as the Gaonim had permitted to propound decisions of the Halakhas, and to fix them, those Gaonim, who succeeded them, were compelled to teach that these decisions of the former Gaonim, even though given without proofs, are holy for the people, as if giver, from Mount Sinai. This circumstance added fuel to the quarrel of the Karaites, and gave them new points of attack. The hope of some great men of the nation to reconcile the Jews with the Karaites became naught, for although the Karaites quarrelled among themselves, and split into rival sects, yet they all equally hated the Talmud, reviled it, and insulted it, styling the two colleges, at Sura and Pumbeditha, "the two harlots" spoken of in Ezekiel, who (claimed they) referred to these colleges in his prophecy." IZAK 07:01, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

"'According to Makrizi there were among the Karaites ten sects, differing from each other in their opinions, practice and festivals; they had no permanence, some rose, some fell, and in the tenth century only five large sects were found, named:'

• 1. Jod'anim or Jodganim.

• 2. Makrites or Magrites.

• 3. Akhbarites.

• 4. Abn Amronites or Tiflisites.

• 5. Balbekites.

• The reader will find in the books of Jost, Grätz, Fürst, Geiger, and in Hebrew, in "Bequoreth L'toldoth Hakaraim" an account of the particulars about which the various sects of the Karaites differed, and also the names of their leaders. IZAK 07:01, 6 May 2004 (UTC)
• "We do not think it necessary to give these details in this place. We will mention for illustration the latest sect, which wished to fix the day of Atonement only on a Saturday every year, because it is said "Sabbath Sabbathan," which means a Sabbath of rest (Lev. xxiii. 32), and they translate "a Sabbath of Sabbaths," and the first day of Passover on Thursday.
• Thus each Karaite sect celebrated the Biblical festivals on different days, for each sect construed the texts in the Pentateuch by preference without being able to come to an agreement.
• Thus also in respect of the observation of Sabbath: for some Karaites, their houses were during the Sabbath their prisons, where they did sit in darkness, and which they could not leave when their neighbors happened not to be Karaites like themselves.

"In this we see the power of the Talmud, that even those who were inimical to it or hostile to a large portion of it, Halakhas never had different opinions concerning the festivals and other such things, important to one particular nation; for they could not deny its general tradition..."IZAK 07:01, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

About an external link

I had added a link Jay Sand's site about African Jews also contains information about various small Jewish diasporas elsewhere. IZAK removed it, remarking, "These groups are mentioned in the body of the article. They are very minor. Is this now going to become a place where all those claiming to be from the "Ten Lost Tribes" can register as Jews=General=) IZAK, did you even examine the site whose link you are deleting? It has information on several groups of undoubted ethnic Jews not mentioned in the article (in Sao Tome and Principe and Cape Verde, for example), discusses everything from the (white) Jews of South Africa to the Jews of Morocco and Tunisia; it gives information on several Jewish communites (e.g. Mozambique that have been forced into exile in the last generation); also, as my comment indicates, it extends beyond Africa to give a good rundown on small Jewish comunities in Asia and Latin America. Three or four of the groups covered are, indeed, groups with dubious claims as "lost tribes", and the site makes that clear, but most are simply small, isolated groups of ethnic Jews, some of them still Jewish by religion, others not. I think this is perfectly relevant to this article. I picked it partly because, unlike similar sites about one or another community, it discusses over twenty countries (about half of them in Africa). Unless you can give me an argument that at least indicates that you have actually looked at the material on the site, I see no reason to accept your deletion and will restore the link. So as to avoid an edit war, I'll hold off at least 24 hours to give you time to respond. -- Jmabel 23:19, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jmabel:Actually, this is related to the above item: [Too many external links] where someone "in the know" advised that ten external links is enough, and we now have many more than that as it is, even after I had trimmed many interesting links. As for the "Jews of Africa etc", yes I looked at your link and I am familiar with some of its contents. If we are now going to "dig up" any entity of people who claim to be Jews then the list will never end as you will find such groups on all continents. Between the "Lost Tribes" and the "Jew envy" (in those cases where Jews were not being killed out, of course) accumulated over thousands of years there are thousands of groups claiming to be connected to the Jews. Then add in those larger groups such as the Pashtuns, Mormons, and even those who want to say that the Japanese are descended from the Jews' lost tribes the sum of it all is that being "Jewish" loses any meaning in any sense. Furthermore, there could be legitimate links tagged on (but shouldn't be, in my opinion as it will then just be a page of "links" to "Jews" then), that could be added about organized conventional communities in all countries with Jews that would fit even in the Halakhic sense, meaning Jews of Morocco, Yemen, Syria, Turkey, Spain, England, Brazil, Paraguay, Mexico, Norway, Italy, Canada, Ukraine, Serbia, Greece, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, ....and it will never end if you go about it this way, unless you want to start actual Wiki articles on each of these which is perfectly fine. So we have to work within some sort of bounds, without "falling off the deep end" thereby making this article so broadly-defined that it becomes "meaningless" to be Jewish! IZAK 01:14, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, only about 4 of the 20 or so groups on that site are questionable in terms of Halakha. Right now, about half the external links from this article are about Judaism, not about Jewish ethnicity, the ostensible topic of the article. Jay Sand's is precisely a site about Jewish ethnicity, and only secondly about the religion. I would think it is far more relevant than the bulk of the links here, which really belong on the Judaism page. And I have written articles about several of the smaller Jewish (and dubiously Jewish) groups. For whatever it's worth, just sticking within your list, the article discusses the Jews of Morocco, Yemen, Turkey, Brazil, and Mexico. -- Jmabel 06:03, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Jmabel:As the article makes clear it is virtually impossible to create a clear dichotomy between being a "Jew" and "Judaism" as the two are inextricably intertwined and only a complete fool would attempt to go with a "working assumption" that somehow it is possible to create an absolute differentiation between a "Jew" and "Judaism". "Judaism" defines who is a "Jew" as much as a "Jew" is a product of "Judaism". One cannot grasp the one without the other. The selection of the word "ethnicity" is NOT from Judaism (and I did not pick it as I was not around when this article was first written). It is an arbitrary word from the secular world using an English word (actually from the GREEK ethnikos and ethnos meaning "nation"), to somehow describe and explain Jews as a people in history and in the present. It just so happens to be that for the bulk of their history for over 3,300 years Jews and Judaism, as measured and expressed in the Torah, were indistinguishable. Over the past three hundred years growing secularization has watered down the Jews' ability to define and recognize themsleves, as new secular words and nomenclature, such as "ethnicity", "secular", "liberal", "humanist", etc struggle to arrive at any consenus whatsoever, which is why this article causes so much consternation as a "Wiki" article, working under the isufficient notion that "Jews" and "Judaism" can be "squeezed into" a "secular encyclopedia", which of course it can't be at all. It's like trying to squeeze God into a "Genie bottle" and expect a little intellectual "rub" to grant "enlightenment" on what is essentialy a complex issue ROOTED in theology, belief, spirituality, and religious identity. IZAK 23:14, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

There is a very big meaning in laying claim to being ethnically Jewish Izak and that is laying claim to the obligation to do ones best to practice one's traditional culture perfectly. Even so this article is about the Jews as an "Ethnicity" not about the religion/culture (which are still both ethnicity), so we might as well cover all the wonderful diversity in that label. Personally with regards to identifying lost tribes, I think that is a Job for the orthodox rabbis to decide based upon evidence presented to them. If we do not accept the orthodox definition of ethnic Jew then any group with large enough numbers can claim to be ethnically jewish and their claim will carry some clout. I think the problem here is the meaning of the word Ethnicity. Judaism IS an ethnicity, however many who do not practice Judaism (there is only one Judaism) still want to call themselves "ethnically" Jewish just because they have some physical descent from a Jew, or even just because they like Latkes & Klezmer. What this article should try to do is describe the levels of Jewish ethnic intensity gauged against Chareidi as the most ethnically Jewish and people who just like latkes in winter (for example) as the least.Zestauferov 09:34, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Zest:Enjoy your latkes (have doubles whilst you're about it)! IZAK 23:21, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

"Moshiach"/Messiah

IZAK, you're watching this page like a peregrine falcon! I have reintroduced the Messiah section in a de-POVd form as it pertains to Jews just as much as Nazi persecutions and antisemitism do. This is not about about the halachic background of the Moshiach (I employ Messiah to avoid confusion), but about a collectively felt common destiny. What are your grounds for in- or exclusion to this article? JFW | T@lk 23:04, 19 May 2004 (UTC) PS I do agree the South African page is too peripheral to merit inclusion as a link.

Hi Jfdwolff:Why start with just "Messiah" then, has the role of "God" (or HaShem in correct Jewish terminology), or of Shabbat, or of Torah, or synagogues been any less "central" to the Jews than the BELIEF in Mashiach? By talking about Messiah you are talking about one of the Thirteen Principles of Faith of JUDAISM. If you insist on mentioning it, then one SENTENCE is enough somewhere...let's see where now.... (By the way, how do you have access to the Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson page? I DISAGREE with you cutting down of all the links there as they show the scope of the Rebbe's work). IZAK 23:38, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Famous ethnic Jews

Would anyone object to my adding Ludwig Wittgenstein to the list in this article? I realize we are trying not to make this list too long, but Wittgenstein was arguably the single most important figure in 20th century Anglo-American philosophy. He wasn't as public a figure as some philosophers (such as his sometime sponsor Bertrand Russell), but his influence on literally dozens of academic disciplines remains enormous. -- Jmabel 03:03, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Maintaining beliefs and practices vs. assimilation and secularization

IZAK, nice work on expanding what I wrote to balance this better. -- Jmabel 19:52, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Dear Jmabel: Thank you. I think what you wrote has more contextual relevance and is based on very real ACTUAL historical events, rather than inserting a Lubavitch diatribe about "Moshiach" -- a "person" in Jewish history who has NOT even shown up (YET), according to Jewry's consensus at the present time, and does NOT exist as a HISTORICAL FIGURE (YET), except in the florid imaginations of those who want to believe in a dead "rebbe". Unless we should start a new sub-heading under "Schisms" for another failed "messiah" and his misguided followers.IZAK 22:15, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Western Wall

I tried fixing a very confused sentence about the Western Wall. I now have, 'The Romans all but destroyed Jerusalem; only a single "Western Wall" of the Temple remained.' Even this is ambiguous, but I don't know which way to resolve the ambiguity. Do we mean to say (1) all that remained of Jerusalem was the Western Wall or (2) all that remained of the Temple was the Western Wall? -- Jmabel 21:02, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Schisms and all that

For an article about an ethnicity, where a separate article exists about the religion, it seems to me that there is an awful lot of discussion here about schisms. I can see that the topic should be mentioned, to the extent to which schisms have redefined who is a Jew, but beyond that, this seems like the wrong article for this material.

If people disagree, could you please explain to me why you think this is the right article for this material? -- Jmabel 00:52, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi Jmabel: Each of the schisms in the article describes major historical PARTINGS OF THE WAYS between the main body of Jews and Judaism and men who broke away whereby these founders at first start off as part of Judaism, and are essentially Jews, and then major "schims" or splits or parting of the ways occur, and a whole body of people move away from the mainstream body of Jews to form their own groups/nations and of course an eventual religion that is far different from what can be called Judaism. The Samaratins and Christians are important in this regard, otherwise you are left with the problem of deciding if anyone who joins Jesus's movement is "Jewish" and presto one can make the (absurd claim) that 2 billion Christians are "Jews" because they believe in the "Jewish" Jesus and the "Jewish" Bible (which is in effect what THEY do say as they claim to be the "NEW" "Israel"). Thus classing them as a schism removes them from the body of Jews as they are understood to be by Jews themselves mostly as defined by the teachings of pure Judaism. Similarly with the Karaites, as over the years many of them moved away from Judaism and as they splintered some adamantly said that they were NOT Jews and some said that they were the "TRUE" Jews, and so again you have the problem that if you remain with their conceptions of themselves you have groups that do not fit into what most Jews today would call "Jews". Similarly with the Sabbateans of the 1600s. In those days ALL Jews were religious, there were almost no "secular Jews", as that is a phenomenon of the 19th and 20th centuries. In their time the Sabbatians were a major body of Jews, but when their leader chose to become a Moslem, many Jews either followed him directly, or secretly remained his followers and were ostracized and isolated, and even hunted by the main body of Jews who viewed the Sabbatians as "heretics". It was a time of a great split in the Jewish people as a people of religion. Eventually the Sabbatians, like the Karaites died out and became an almost invisible group, but in their time they were SIGNIFICANT ETHNIC (i.e. "NATIONAL") movements of Jews who had chosen alternate paths and eventually moved away from being accepted as part of the main body of Jewry, the way most Jews conceive of themsleves as a people today. The modern-day equivalents of these phenomena are actually decribed earlier in the article in the fairly large arguments alloted to explaining the diffences between the Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist, Secular Israeli, and Orthodox views of defining who and what is a Jew, and the procedures for conversions. You are never going to arrive at a point where you can "measure", "describe", and "explain" the Jews as people/nation/group without reference to Judaism (and Torah). Only Marxists and western sociologists would take on such purely secular/"clinical" perspectives at their own peril, by displaying their ignorance of the power and meaning of the Jewish religion for the Jewish people, and vice-versa, and the never-ending interplay between both Judaism and the Jews who are inter-locked in an eternal mother-child dynamic. IZAK 04:14, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Star of David

Shouldn't be on this page. From Star of David, many Orthodox Jews reject its use. It's use on this page causes the page to be unbiased. Cellsy

Hi Cellsy, Where do you get your information from? Many Orthodox Jews DECORATE many of the covers of their books and religious objects with the Star of David and are proud of it. If as you note: "it's use on this page causes the page to be unbiased" so what is the problem? IZAK 04:39, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Hi, the information is on Star of David concerning Orthodox Jewish groups who reject the image.

Hi again: The ones who object to it are probably the Ultra-Orthodox Judaism groups, like Neturei Karta who are vehemently anti-Zionist and anti the modern State of Israel, and because Zionism and the State of Israel have placed the Star of David on the Israeli flag, these other groups "oppose" it, but it is NOT because there is anything wrong with the symbol per se. On the contrary, one can see tombstones in Europe going back hundred of years in the most pious Jewish communities with the Star of David always displayed on top of them, as it is the well-known universal symbol for the Jew/s which most gentiles (especially Christians and Moslems know is the symbol for the Jew/s), furthermore, all Modern Orthodox Judaism and all the other branches display the Israeli flag with its Star of David at the front of most synagogues near where the Torahs are kept, and it is used freely as a decorative symbol on various covers and bags for religious items like the bags for Talit and Tefilin, prayer books, goblets, silverware. It is also a symbol of significance in Jewish mysticism the Kabbala. There is absolutely no prohibition against it in Jewish law Halakha at all whatsoever. IZAK 04:57, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

By including the star you are alienating and ostracizing a segment of the jewish population, it doesn't matter if they are ultra orthodox or what. Also, Christianity does not have a cross on it's page, why is the star here? Are you trying to say something? If so, what is it?

• This is not about Judaism. Today, for both historical, political, cultural, AND religious reasons, the majority of all Jews fully accept the Star of David as the symbol of the Jews. The SECULAR state of Israel has adopted it as its symbol at the same time that it remains the accepted symbol of Jews and Judaism for all religious streams of Judaism today (except for Israeli-flag burning Neturei Karta followers, and maybe even some pro-PLO followers who want to destroy Israel and the Jews). Obviously there are always some who protest everything. What Christians choose to put on their page is their business, this is not a program in comparative religions, as the Jews are both a NATIONALITY (ETHNICITY) and also a "RELIGION" (whereas Christianity is ONLY a religion). Nevertheless, there are many flags and countries that have a Christian cross on their national flags, such as Great Britain and most of the Scandanavian countries. Why don't you study a little bit more about Jewish history and Judaism in all its shades and colors, before you jump to conclusions. IZAK 06:17, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

My point is that by leaving the star you are ostracizing a segment of the population (yes, it's a minority but still you are alienating them).

An encyclopedia is about FACTS, and not about alienating the MINORITY of people. It is a FACT that the star is NOT accepted by all Jews, therefore it is NOT a universal symbol for JEWS.

I believe you are attempting to brand the article instead of presenting FACTS. If it were the symbol UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED BY ALL JEWS, then it should be here. As it is not UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED as the symbol of the JEW, then it hsould not be here. I hate to say this but Hitler believed the star of david was the universal symbol of the jews, and BRANDED THEM with it.

Please leave only facts here. If there is mention of the star here, then it should be in a paragraph, explaining that SOME Jews accept this as our symbol but some do not. It especially should not be the first thing one sees when reading about our people.

In my (non-Jewish) experience, the Star of David is by far the most common Jewish symbol, and appears to be used extensively by both Orthodox and Reform Jewish groups, as well as by the founders of the state of Israel. This is not imposed on Jews, but used by them out of choice. I have modified the wording accordingly to say that it is the "most common symbol" of Jewish identity. You might want to write a segment in the article about Jewish symbols, and those minority groups who do not use the Star of David, and why. -- The Anome 09:04, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

I imagine that the Jewish symbolism article might be the right place for discussions about Jewish symbols... -- The Anome 09:32, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Analogy: there are certainly U.S. citizens who do not like the U.S flag, but that doesn't make it not a symbol of the U.S. -- Jmabel 18:39, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

Christian slant on talmud link

I removed the link to the christian interpretation of the talmud. A link to a copy of the talmud would be appropriate but not a biased view by a christian site. - Tεxτurε 15:08, 26 May 2004 (UTC)