Talk:Judaism

Salvation

Would people please comment here? I may overstate the case or oversimplify in saying that there is no idea of salvation in Judaism. My real point is that whatever Jews mean by salvation is so different from Christianity they are not well-served by being in one article. Perhaps Wikipedia could use a good article going into the long history of the concept of salvation in Judaism, but right now the current Salvation aricle is NOT "it" and I think the differences between Christianity and Judaism here are so great that it makes the intro an NPOV nightmare. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if there is any one position Judaism takes on predestination. My Rosh Hashanah prayerbook says "On Rosh Hashanah it is written/On Yom Kippur it is sealed...Who shall live and who shall die...who shall perish by earthquake and who by plague... who shall be troubled (?) and who shall not..." or something like that, suggesting that traditional Jewish ideas consider predestination to be an annual thing. 68.32.48.221 (talk) 03:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You are talking about judgment. What you describe is post-destination, not pre-destination. The judgment is being made after you have acted. The judgment your prayerbook refers to is not a judgment made about you for the following year, it is not saying you will live or die based on things you have not yet done, it is saying you are judged on what you have already done. This is as far from predestination as one can get. Every Jewish theologican I know of has God voluntarily limiting himself in someway in order to provide people with free will; I don't know of any Jewish theologian who promoted an idea of predestination. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Etymology of the term

We seriously need an etymology of the term. Faro0485 (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I second that notion.--Kettenhunde (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Not all seafood is traif

The article mentions "major prohibitions exist on eating pork, which is considered an unclean animal, and seafood." In fact sea creatures with fins and scales are kosher. Shell fish, for example, is considered traif. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.92.10.168 (talk) 17:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this was updated to something like "certain sorts of seafood" now. Debresser (talk) 06:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Directly from the article: "some types of seafood" Looks perfectly accurate to me. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

section: Dietary laws: Kashrut

This sentence, in the article is problematic:

"Major prohibitions exist on eating pork, which is considered an unclean animal, and some types of seafood."

I've suggested two alternatives, only to be reverted.

There aren't really "major" and "minor" prohibitions. All prohibitions are of approximately equal status, as concerns the Jewish dietary guidelines. It would be hard to make a case that the prohibition on eating milk and meat mixtures, was greater or lesser than for instance the prohibition on eating pig, or lobster, for instance.

While the majority of biblical kosher violations carry a penalty of lashes, a few do carry the penalty of kareth, or spiritual severance; namely the prohibitions of consuming blood and forbidden fats (cheilev). DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, pork is not the name of the animal. The animal that pork comes from is called a pig.

I am about to put the following into the article:

Meat from the pig is considered to be a not kosher foodstuff. Additionally, certain seafood items, such as shellfish, crustaceans, eels and many other creatures of the sea are considered to be not kosher foodstuffs.

Previously I tried inserting these alternative sentences:

1.) "Meat from the pig is not eaten, and some forms of seafood are not eaten."

2.) "Meat products derived from the pig are prohibited from being eaten. Certain seafood products are also prohibited from being eaten."

I think the above two sentences are equally appropriate. Bus stop (talk) 02:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Your focus on pigs in somewhat uneven handed -- pigs are essentially no different than any other nonkosher animal in terms of their "unkosherness." They are specifically mentioned in the Torah because they have one of the two kosher signs (they posses split hooves but fail to ruminate). The camel is also specifically pointed out, because it is the one example of a land mammal that we can point to that ruminates but fails to manifest split hooves. In a sense, then, the pig has come to represent nonkosher mammals for some time, and perhaps it deserves a somewhat unbalanced emphasis, as it is one of the few nonkosher mammals that is consumed regularly as a food item (it's not like dog or hamster is such a popular delicacy, at least not in the Western world.) But some mention of this should be included. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Do we say "not kosher" or "non-kosher"? Debresser (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, non-kosher might be preferable to "not kosher." Even unkosher or un-kosher is acceptable, I would think. Bus stop (talk) 02:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been following the recent changes to this section and Bus stop, I think you've made some interesting points. I've tried to write text that addresses your criticisms and stays closer to the tone and flow of the article. I've also tried to fix some of the errors and omissions about Kashrut in the article. --AFriedman (talk) 03:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Very nice work, AFriedman. I have a few minor changes that I'd like to make, but overall your edits are a tremendous improvement over the section that was there before. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 03:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks :). I agree that the section still isn't perfect, and I'd especially like to see other people improving the paragraph about Kashrut's rationale. I don't completely understand this myself, even though I observe much of Kashrut. Were you thinking about any other places to edit the section? Malik, I'd like to see your specific "minor changes." --AFriedman (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Most of the changes were minor, grammar and such. The biggest change I made was in the paragraph about dishes and utensils; I hope my change clarified it a little and didn't muck it up. :-) — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 04:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You really did make the dishes section clearer and I've paraphrased it a bit. --AFriedman (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I too have made what I consider to be clarifications, based on the fine work done before. Debresser (talk) 06:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I was surprised to read that Conservative Judaism would challenge the halacha of yen nesech. Is this true? Perhaps Reform is meant? Debresser (talk) 06:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, the problem is with the tense in this sentence: "Furthermore, Orthodox Judaism forbids the consumption of processed grape products made by non-Jews, since wines were often used in ancient pagan rituals" In the first clause, Orthodox Jews prohibit (present tense) consumption of processed grape products. Are we correct to infer that we are talking about grape products manufactured today? If so, how could they possibly have been used in ancient pagan rituals? Conservative Jews did not exist in ancint times but as far as I know all Conservative rabbis consider wine used in ancient (past) pagan rituals to have been (past tense) unkosher. We know of no wine made today that is used in pagan rituals, indeed, it is hard to imagine how anhy wine made today could be ttransported back in time to be used in ancient times. So the sentence about Orthodox belief is somewhat screwey.Slrubenstein | Talk 23:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

How about:

"There are concerns centering on wine made from grape juice, and even other food products made from grape juice. The concerns relate to the use of wine in both Jewish as well as pagan rituals. Jewish dietary laws can be expressed to require special supervision in the producing of such products especially wine. This requirement is more often the province of the Orthodox than the Conservative." Bus stop (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted this edit. It is wrong. First of all, you can't attribute to the source what it doesn't say. The way that paragraph was, was precisely according to the source, and according to the truth. The question of Slrubenstein notwithstanding. He appearently doesn't know the difference between "yen nesech" and "stam yenam". Debresser (talk) 23:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The relevant information I find from that source, "Judaism 101," is this:

The restrictions on grape products derive from the laws against using products of idolatry. Wine was commonly used in the rituals of all ancient religions, and wine was routinely sanctified for pagan purposes while it was being processed. For this reason, use of wines and other grape products made by non-Jews was prohibited. (Whole grapes are not a problem, nor are whole grapes in fruit cocktail).

For the most part, this rule only affects wine and grape juice. This becomes a concern with many fruit drinks or fruit-flavored drinks, which are often sweetened with grape juice. You may also notice that some baking powders are not kosher, because baking powder is sometimes made with cream of tartar, a by-product of wine making. All beer used to be kosher, but this is no longer the case because fruity beers made with grape products have become more common. Bus stop (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Why are you quoting this? Debresser (talk) 23:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Debresser, but a grape product, such as wine, manufactured today, cannot have been used in an ancient pagan ritual. Do you believe in time travel? I am not arguing about halacha right now, I am arguing about the tense agreement of the sentence. It makes no sense in English. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

These are two separate questions, Slrubenstein. I don't think anyone necessarily is "arguing about halacha." The grammatical question is just one question. But I think the other question is expressing the sourced understanding of any restrictions placed on grape products and especially wine. Bus stop (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Debresser, I just thought it might be helpful to get onto the Talk page the relevant quote from the source, or at least the one source that we have so far. Bus stop (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I see. Thank you. As to the comment about tense usage. The text is completely correct: we forbid wine now, because of what used to be done with wine once. That is precisely the law of "stam yenam". Debresser (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The key term seems to be "derive from." Perhaps we should get that term into the text in the article. Bus stop (talk) 00:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I've made a change. I've attempted to incorporate the term "derives from" into the already existing statement. Bus stop (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I've made a couple of minor changes to the Kashrut section and referenced the Conservative responsa about wine. I have a slipped disk and am in bed, so this limits my editing of Wikipedia, but I like the edits that you people have made to the section. --AFriedman (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions as well. Debresser (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Spelling Error

The earliest know instance of the term used to mean "the profession or practice of the Jewish religion; the religious system or polity of the Jews," is Robert Fabyan's The newe cronycles of Englande and of Fraunce a 1513. As an English translation of the Latin, the first instance in English is a 1611 translation of the Apocrypha, 2 Macc. ii. 21 "Those that behaved themselues manfully to their honour for Iudaisme."[4]

needs to be:

The earliest known instance of the term used to mean "the profession or practice of the Jewish religion; the religious system or polity of the Jews," is Robert Fabyan's The newe cronycles of Englande and of Fraunce a 1513. As an English translation of the Latin, the first instance in English is a 1611 translation of the Apocrypha, 2 Macc. ii. 21 "Those that behaved themselues manfully to their honour for Iudaisme."[4]

There may be other errors as well but an error like this in Paragraph 2 is not so good for such an important article.128.54.238.26 (talk) 06:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the typo. I've fixed it. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 06:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Farrakhan, expert on Jews

I find this troubling and hope others will comment: [1] Slrubenstein | Talk 22:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. I agree that it is troubling, and in fact so is the entire article Jews and Hollywood IMO. I've suggested that the article "Jews and Hollywood" be merged with American Jews, where anti-semites and well-wishers alike would be able to read an article with a more balanced perspective on Jews in Hollywood. Information about Jews in other fields is represented as lists of individual people, not articles. --AFriedman (talk) 01:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That is a good suggestion. The author of the article and a couple of othe editors are really fighting to keep it. This really concerns me. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you come back and join us on the talk page of that article. --AFriedman (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a new AN/I thread watchers of this article may wish to see:[2] Slrubenstein | Talk 18:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. I've put in my 2¢. I am wondering, has this discussion gone off topic for this article's Talk page? --AFriedman (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Citing biblical verses - technical issue

It seems to me there is a problem with citing biblical verses in Wikipedia. The commonly available English translations are based on the division of the Hebrew Bible according to Christian theologians, and the only Jewish version of Westminster Leningrad Codex is in Hebrew, and therefore useless to the English reader of Wikipedia. The article on Torah reading does not make this known, but the Jewish division of the Bible is different to Christian version, and this can lead to confusion when used to substantiate a specific point in any given article requiring specifically Jewish Rabbinic interpretation. It seems the only Jewish translation available online is the JPS 1917 version which is available as a Wikisource [3] but for reasons unknown is not used. What is that reason?--Meieimatai? 03:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing the JPS translation. Perhaps you could put the link to the JPS translation in the main spaces of this article, the "Torah reading" article, and similar pages. I suspect that the prevalence of Christian translations in Jewish related articles is due to the Christian versions being easier to find, and most editors may latch onto any translation that makes the relevant point. I think many editors are not aware of what's on Wikisource. Have you found specific problems with translated text that has been used in Wikipedia? --AFriedman (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Where should the link to JPS go in the man space of this article?

It seems to me that using a Christian, usually post-Renaissance translation of a translation (from Septuagint or Vulgate) makes little sense in Jewish articles requiring such citing since it is always preferable to go to the MS contemporary to the culture. It seems that this is the reason JPS was initially printed due to the lack of reliable English translation using Jewish sources of interpretation. Of course that was not perfect either.

I have not found specific issues where this would matter in Wikipedia articles, and know of them only through academic readings, but then again, I had not looked for them either.--Meieimatai? 12:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The link belongs at the end of the article, in the relevant links section if it isn't there already. You could also look for other articles I think would benefit from it--many articles about the Jewish religion are far less complete than this one. Does the translation on Wikisource have any materials besides the text itself? Also, I'm not convinced that Jews always use Jewish translations when they study the Tanakh in English, since they themselves may not share your POV that there is some inherent problem with using Christian translations. For example, I have read Christian translations as materials for a course about Judaism sponsored and run by an Orthodox Jewish organization. Thus, the Christian translations may also contemporary to Jewish culture. In the absence of drastically different interpretations of specific passages, they are more "standard" even for Jews than original translations, which are also acceptable to cite on Wikipedia. --AFriedman (talk) 02:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You miss the point. The issue is not only translation differences, but how the text is divided into chapters. Its different in the Hebrew text Torah to the Christian translations derived from Greek and Latin sources.

Wikisource has only the text.--Meieimatai? 05:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance--I knew the order and selection of the books was different in parts of the Christian Old Testaments vs. Jewish Tanakh, but I didn't know this. So in other words, a reference to the same chapter and verse of a given book in the Christian vs. Jewish Bibles may not be a reference the same passage? That would be a real problem on WP. --AFriedman (talk) 05:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but don't be so hard on yourself. Even most Jews don't know this since few religious Jews read Christian Bibles, and few Christians get a chance to study the Torah scrolls which is where the passage order breaks down due to the codified location of certain passages on certain pages by Torah scribes. This requirement had never existed in Septuagint, and was not passed on to later Christian MS texts. I will try to locate a source for this, and the relevant passages so affected.--Meieimatai? 13:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Please let us know as soon as you can--and I'd like to see the source and the list of passages which are affected. --AFriedman (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Another Jewish-related category eliminated

See discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_October_26#Category:Jewish_inventors. Badagnani (talk) 06:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Improving the article?

This article is only B-class, despite its importance. Perhaps we should make a concerted effort to improve it. Any suggestions about sections that need to be fleshed out, or editors/WikiProjects to contact? --AFriedman (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

See Good article criteria for guidelines about how to bring the article to the next level.

The obvious WikiProject to turn to for help is WikiProject Judaism. It's been my experience that it's usually only one or two editors who do most of the "heavy lifting", although other editors will help with minor things. Considering the large number of editors who watch this article (more than 700), posting a to-do list here might be the most effective way of soliciting help.

To the extent my schedule permits, I'd be happy to help—although I don't think I can take a leadership role. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Talking about "improving the article", Bus stop is again trying to "improve" the article with minor changes in wording, that actually make the article less accurate and diminish the article's style. Please be on the watch. Debresser (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Debresser, in my opinion criticism is best when it is specific. What edit or edits of mine do you specifically object to, and why? Bus stop (talk) 03:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Update: I've been working on the first 2 paragraphs of the introduction, so far. Do you think these paragraphs need more references? Also, which non-Abrahamic religions did Judaism influence? This fact needs to be added.

Other items I'm placing on the to-do list, for now:

• Integrate Karaite Judaism within the main section about Jewish denominations.
• Change "Rabbinic literature" from list form.
• Flesh out the sections about Shabbat and family purity.
• Expand "Christianity and Judaism" section
• Any other ideas/suggestions?

--AFriedman (talk) 01:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If I may add my reaction.

• The article is already not short. Expanding sectons that have their own article is the opposite of what should be done in such a case. This article should contain only the basics about each subject (like the lead of an article). This is in my view especially true for subjects that are less related to Judiasm itself, like the section proposed for expansion above. Debresser (talk) 09:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding User:Bus stop. I have posted a warning template on his talkpage for

1. edit warring
2. removing sourced information
3. changing perfect sentences

First he had a problem with the chickens, now with the pigs. :) Where will this stop? :) Debresser (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Debresser, perfect sentences are unlikely. Anyone who writes should know that.

The subject is food. It should come as no surprise to you that the identities of animals (sources of food) should come up. Please try to keep your interaction with me civil. There has hardly been an "edit war," unless you count my two attempts to reword a sentence over a period of 36 hours. (The wording of my two attempts was different, hopefully better the second time.) It was you who reverted me each time, and now you are threatening me with block. Should you be using administrative tools to get your personal way? Perhaps. And perhaps not. You have resorted to attempts at ridicule, which is a poor substitute for constructive communication. This edit summary, for example. Do you seriously consider this edit to be vandalism, as you refer to it here? There may not be any such thing as a perfect sentence but at least my sentence leaves out what I see as the extraneous material that your preferred sentence includes. But you do not seem inclined to discuss the writing of the article.

Sourced information is not sacrosanct. There is obviously better and less appropriate sourced information. I wished to include information differentiating the Biblical injunction against eating mammalian meat with milk and the Rabbinically enacted injunction against eating chicken (an avian form of life) with milk. I simply find it interesting material. The Torah does not even consider the flesh of fowl in the same category as the flesh of such creatures as cows, sheep and goats. In colloquial terminology, according to the source I brought, chicken is not considered meat. By the way, I have no point of view to push whatsoever. (Not that you said I did.) I want to put interesting information into the article. I want the article to be quick, fast, easy-to-read, interesting, and fun.

Rather than try to write the article in a collaborative way, with me, you seem more inclined to get your way, with no reasons given, and with no interaction with me. I wrote a short, snappy sentence, containing only the essentials:

"The pig is not considered kosher; it has split hooves but it does not chew its cud."

You replaced it with the following:

"The pig is arguably the most well-known example of a non-kosher animal--although it has split hooves, it does not chew its cud."

The one thing that is for certain is that my sentence above hardly qualifies as "vandalism." Bus stop (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I also find this, above, to be little more than unconstructive carping:

"Talking about "improving the article", Bus stop is again trying to "improve" the article with minor changes in wording, that actually make the article less accurate and diminish the article's style. Please be on the watch. Debresser (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)"

• I have no "administrative tools", so insinuating that I might use them to get my way is... peculiar. I am not an administrator. I could only complain about you, and if an admin would agree with my assessment of your edits, he could choose to block you.
• I consider your edit "edit warring", yes. You revert to your sentence. The more so because you do so without good cause. By the same token I am edit warring, since I reverted you. The question is whether we keep on warring?
• Sourced information is not untouchable, that is correct, but the editor removing it is likely to loose the argument. Same for taking a perfect (I insist) sentence and replacing it without good cause. That is not appreciated by editors. Even if you hadn't replaced it with the inferior (IMHO) sentence you made.
• The sentence I made is more informative in two ways: 1. It mentions the fact that the pig is the most well-known example of a non-kosher animal. 2. It alludes in a by the way manner to the fact that the pig is the only animal to have split hooves while not chewing its cud (as mentioned in the Torah itself). Jewish oral tradition tells the story that the pig shows off its hooves, pretending to be kosher. It treacherousness is considered by this tradition to be the reason it is the non-kosher animal par excellence. Debresser (talk) 06:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not your article. The atmosphere of Wikipedia almost necessitates entertaining styles you may not be familiar with. Styles in writing, for instance. You can defend your sentence, but not by insisting it's perfect. The use of the Talk page is about articulating reasons for wanting to do things in the way that you feel is best. The Talk page (and edit summaries) should not be used to ridicule or marginalise another editor. This sort of comment lacks civility: "Talking about "improving the article", Bus stop is again trying to "improve" the article with minor changes in wording, that actually make the article less accurate and diminish the article's style. Please be on the watch." In the foregoing you are not speaking to me but about me.

Now you are giving the reasoning that you should have been giving for your preferred wording all along. The small story from Jewish oral tradition is interesting in this context. But you hadn't mentioned it before now. And I still question its inclusion in this place in the article. Is that point being made a "hint" to something else the reader may eventually discover?

If the argument goes that we are sticking to details in this article, as it is the most general overview of the subjects covered in it, then why the exception to highlight the pig as the one non-kosher animal "par excellence," especially as the small story from Jewish oral tradition is not even included? I admit this discussion of animals sounds funny, but it would be my contention that the simple statement that the pig (among all other non-kosher animals) is not kosher and that it has "split hooves but it does not chew its cud" already represents a singling out of that animal. It is already being given special mention. It is unnecessary, in my opinion, to add such stuff as "...arguably the most well-known example of..." Rabbits and camels and horses are not being afforded similar representation. Bus stop (talk) 06:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

A well know fact. Note that I use the words "the article" and not "my article". Debresser (talk) 06:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Fine, but I have not suggested to you that you "Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing." The foregoing is uncalled for. Bus stop (talk) 12:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

To AFriedman. The third paragraph of the lede now starts off with "Who is Jewish" , continues with Jewish courts, and end with population estimates. If find this difficult to read. Especially between the first and the second sentence the reader is left with the question whether any connection must be presumed between these facts (while the answer is clearly "no"). Debresser (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Debresser, I've answered this at the bottom of the page.

Bus stop, I agree that other editors have been too hard on you, especially since you've been editing in good faith. No one edits perfectly. However, I think you should keep in mind the concept of WP:Consensus. We'd all be happier for it. This is an overview article and, although there's room for some specifics, I'm going to side with Debresser that too many details make it unmanageable. I'm still not sure if the poultry and pig issues were resolved as far as you were concerned, but if you're really interested in the poultry issue beyond more than a sentence or two, an overview or even a discussion of it belongs in more specialized articles.

Malik, thanks for the tips and I've been trying to take them into account. --AFriedman (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Chicken

This Had Been Taking Place On My Talk Page But I Think It Would More Appropriately Dwell Here Bus stop (talk) 03:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

---

Please refer to Shulkhan Arukh, Yoreh Deah 87:3 for the halakha on fowl. I have corrected your error. -- Avi (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I find the following here:

Before we discuss the subject of "eggs" it would first be imperative to understand first why chicken and dairy products are prohibited.

The Talmud says that when the Torah says "do not boil a kid in it's mother's milk," it is only referring to meat from the 3 kosher domesticated animals - cow, goat and sheep.

However, since people "intuitively" associate chicken as "meat," then it became the law as well not to mix chicken and milk. This view was accepted by the entire Jewish people as binding law about 1500 years ago.

The rabbinic prohibition of not eating poultry with dairy products is one of the many "fences around the Torah" that the Sages instituted. As the name "fence" suggests, the prohibition helps protect the Torah from being transgressed accidentally, and help people protect themselves from spiritual damage.

Furthermore, the 6-hour waiting period that applies between eating meat and milk products, likewise applies when one eats chicken.

I think the above source, while perhaps not the most authoritative of sources, is making a distinction between such animals as cows, goats, and sheep on the one hand and fowl such as chicken on the other hand. That distinction concerns the status as "meat" concerning these various animals. 20:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Bus stop (talk)

I brought you THE most authoritative source on Kashrut, Bus stop. Do you know anything about halakha and how it has been transmitted for the past 3000 years? -- Avi (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be specific, no one anymore will argue on the Mechaber or the Rama, especially if both the Taz and Shach agree. -- Avi (talk) 20:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I do thank you for the sources you brought my attention to. But perhaps we should include material from the source that I suggested above also. It represents a vantage point slightly at variance with the sources you brought. I am not suggesting that undue weight be given to this source. But nor is my source absolutely without applicability to the question we are addressing. Bus stop (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

To be precise, the source you brought does not argue with what I brought. The error in your original edit was not clarifying that practically, the treatment of fowl and flesh is identical. It is only the level of prohibition (Biblical or Rabbinic, so either ~3000 or ~2000 years old). Also, the source you bring holds of th e6 hour wait period, which is not universal (6, into the sixth, five and a half, three, and in the Dutch community one, are all still extant. Four is brought in Renaissance-era responsa but I know of no community that adheres to that now). Bringing the Shulkhan Arukh side-steps those issues too. What is it that you want added from your source? -- Avi (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you are providing adequate sources for the statement you wish to make. You say in the article, "Chicken and other kosher birds are considered the same as meat under the laws of Kashrut, but the prohibition is Rabbinic, not Biblical." And you provide as sources, the Shulchan Aruch and Yoreh De'ah. But these are Wikipedia articles, and neither of those two articles mentions anything about what you are saying in that statement. Bus stop (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The source is the Shulchan Oruch in volume Yore Deah. The internal links are just so that people should know what those are. It is like linking to a publisher inside a ciatation template: not that the information is in the article about the publisher. So this whole argument is void and had better be concluded. Debresser (talk) 04:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems that User:Bus stop does not know what the Shulkhan Aruch is, which raises the question why is s/he editing about halakha? Anyone with a modicum of knowledge about Halakha, Jewish tradition, or Jewish history would know that in this case, the reference to Yoreh Deah (with appropriate reference to major glosses and responsa if necessary) is the most authoritative source. -- Avi (talk) 05:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Why should Bus stop's level of Halakhic knowledge be important? Bus stop seems to mean well and want to learn. This page is so well watched that if we make a mistake in our good faith edits, we're quickly corrected. By the way, I think many Jews who are not Orthodox might disagree that Yoreh Deah is the most authoritative source on meat and milk. To give some extreme examples, this group considers a certain passage near the beginning of our Parshat Vayeira to be far more authoritative. This website discusses a similar interpretation of the Torah, from a Reform Jewish perspective. --AFriedman (talk) 05:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If you wish to discuss other denominations interpretations of Jewish dietary law, then by all means. But when discussing Rabbinic Judaism, as that paragraph was, the authoritative text is the Shulkhan Arukh. -- Avi (talk) 05:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, which is why when I re-wrote the section about Kashrut, I specifically said that the prohibition against meat + milk was part of Rabbinic Judaism. I might be wrong, but I think the issues with the meat + milk paragraph over here have been fixed. --AFriedman (talk) 05:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

IIRC, Reform Judaism doesn't hold any Kashrut laws, and Conservative Jews who do hold of it, follow the Rabbinic prohibition against birds and milk as well. Regardless, as the article stands now I think we're just fine. -- Avi (talk) 06:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I don't think we necessarily must conclusively answer whether the "Shulkhan Arukh, Yoreh Deah 87:3" is the final word or not on what some editors think is the primary question under consideration here. But if that is going to be our source, at least provisionally, perhaps it would not be a bad idea if we included an excerpted relevant passage from that source in the citation at the bottom of the page.

I felt that there was value in stating the interesting and I think correct fact that Judaism does not consider fowl to be meat — at least not in the category of the meat of certain four-legged mammals, and at least not in Judaism's first iteration of the laws of kashrus. As far as I know, there is a distinction made between cows, sheep, and goats on the one hand (if you have a hand that big), and chickens on the other.

The reasoning behind why they are both considered the same, as far as dairy/meat separation is concerned, and as far as kosher slaughter requirements are concerned, may be perfectly sound reasoning. That reasoning can be worked into this article, the Kashrus article, or simply left to remain in footnotes. I understand the points that have been made — that one prohibition is Biblical in origin, the other prohibition is Rabbinic in origin, and that one originates 3000 years ago and the other originates 2000 years ago. That is all good information and I'm not disputing it or objecting to its inclusion in Wikipedia articles.

But I don't think any of the foregoing alters the fact that chicken is originally distinguished from meat in Judaism. I made the following edit: "Chicken (or other fowl) are not considered meat under the Jewish dietary guidelines. Nevertheless chicken is treated as though it were meat for the purpose of separating dairy and meat." I think the foregoing is a true statement. I am not averse to rewording it. But what bothers me is that what I regard as the most important part of that statement is left out. This is the present iteration of that statement: "Chicken and other kosher birds are considered the same as meat under the laws of Kashrut, but the prohibition is Rabbinic, not Biblical." I think the origin of the dietary laws as pertains to red meat specifically and the flesh of kosher birds would be of interest to the reader.

I think that an interesting way to say this is to first state that fowl is distinguished from red meat in the Biblical stating of the dietary laws. That, I would contend, is an interesting point. It is only after that is stated that further information should explain that Rabbinic law came along 1,000 years later (2,000 years ago) which in effect equated the flesh of birds (kosher birds) with the flesh of cows, sheep, and pigs goats. Bus stop (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The section about Kashrut in this article doesn't need us to delve into every aspect of it, just to go over the basics. I agree that a discussion of Yoreh Deah and other relevant passages, and the origin of the taboo against eating chicken+milk (or meat+milk in general) belongs in Wikipedia. However, such a fine point of Halakha probably belongs in a more specialized article. The article about Kashrut is an obvious suggestion, and even the article about Rabbinic Judaism is only Start-class and might benefit from a few specific examples of how Rabbinic law evolved. I suggest you make the changes to these other articles at this point, and not this one.

If we're really interested in going into details about Kashrut and the chicken in particular, Karaite Jews are not even sure the chicken is a kosher bird. Hakham Avraham Ben-Rahamiel Qanai, for example, thinks the chicken may well be the forbidden "doukhifat"[4]. For an opposite Karaite view, that chicken is kosher, here is the link to Hakham Meir Rekhavi's website:[5]. There are lots of other things to write about Kashrut, including less well-known restrictions within Orthodox Judaism, but I think the basics are now covered in the main Judaism article. Let's focus on other articles if we want to provide complete information about Kashrut. --AFriedman (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Judaism article improvement

Debresser, I was in the middle of condensing the 4 paragraphs of the Judaism introduction into 3 paragraphs (as well as citing the unsourced materials), and was going to get back to it. I think you're right about the 3rd paragraph being confusing, and also about the "Hakham" issue. Re: Hakhams, I'd been thinking about the Karaites, who use this term for their spiritual leaders. About Rabbis: even within Orthodox Judaism, my understanding is that individual people often decide which rabbi to follow on each issue, especially if they belong to one of the more liberal movements, and Orthodox thought includes a wide range of not-always-agreeing opinions. So in effect, many Orthodox have quite a bit of latitude in deciding the issues for themselves, and this does not even take into account Conservative and Reform. I'm about to try and fix the the third paragraph and please let me know what you think. --AFriedman (talk) 02:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I thought you had the Karaim in mind when you used the word "hakham". The Gruzinim also use that word for their rabbis, BTW.

If Orthodox make their own decissions, then both words (rabbi and scholar) are not applicable. :)

I usually agree with your edits. Just that you make lots of them. :) Wouldn't it be easier to write something on Word first, or use a personal sandbox to copy a few sections into and work with them? Debresser (talk) 06:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

A couple things:

• It's a subtle point, but I think the sentence about "rabbis and scholars" should remain as-is. First, Rabbis usually have more authority than other people and they're such an important topic that perhaps they warrant special mention and a link to the page about them in the introduction. Second, Judaism traditionally values scholarship and so "scholars" also warrant mention in my opinion. I'm not only talking about Hakhams--knowledgeable lay people can have a substantial influence on their family and community even when Rabbis are the leaders. For example, it's often the husband of an Orthodox Jewish family that is the scholar and religious authority within the family.
• I did not know that the Gruzinim also call their Rabbis Hakham. I'm curious, is the position closer to its Karaite counterpart or its Sephardic/Ashkenazi Orthodox counterpart, or defined differently altogether? In Karaite Judaism, my understanding is that the Hakham may play an organizational role in the synagogue, but is a spiritual advisor rather than a legal authority. The Hakham's interpretations carry no more legal weight than other people's. (As an aside, this is one of the things that fascinates me so much about Karaism—that despite its origins in medieval Western Asia, its emphasis on limiting the power of religious government and upholding the universal right to interpret the Tanakh on an equal footing reminds me of the Jeffersonian strain of American legal thought.)
• Re: my edits. If following page history is confusing for you, I'll try not to hit the save page button too much at one sitting. However, I'm often editing while taking a study break, so I might be working for an hour or having a meal, making a couple edits, working for some time again, making a couple edits, etc. When I do this, I think my edits can be followed by just looking at the sum total of all my diffs. How much of a problem is it for you? --AFriedman (talk) 16:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

In my experience the term hakham is reserved among the Gruzinim for venerated authorities both halakhically as well as otherwise.

I have no serious problem with your style of editing. Usually I look at the resulting edits as one, but sometimes that is hard. Such as in today's edits, where your and User:Bus stop's edits were interspersed. Debresser (talk) 16:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm curious how you are familiar with the Gruzinim, but that is beside the point. I know almost nothing about their culture. --AFriedman (talk) 17:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I lived a while in a neighbourhood with a strong Gruzini community.

About your last reference to the kashrut paragraph. I don't think your reference about the military is appropriate for the general proposition. Debresser (talk) 18:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I was having trouble finding a good link about pikuach nefesh that specifically addressed kashrut. Actually, the best one I found came from suite101, a site that Wikipedia has banned as an external link because of spam and verifiability issues. Do you know of a specific reference that would be better than the one I used? --AFriedman (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

No, but I could look around. I work a lot with references and the Wikipedia blacklist makes trouble for me. I seriously think it is an absolutely unnecessary and even detrimental part of Wikipedia. After trying to get sites whitelisted a few times, utterly unsuccessfull, I have started working around them. Debresser (talk) 19:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I found an good source: ד"ר יחזקאל ליכטנשטיין. "ד ף ש ב ו ע י מספר 805" (in Hebrew). אוניברסיטת בר-אילן, הפקולטה למדעי היהדות, לשכת רב הקמפוס. הותרו ללא ספק איסורים מסוימים משום פיקוח נפש, כמו אכילת מזון לא כשר, which translates as Y. Lichtenshtein M.A. "Weekly Pamphlet #805". Bar-Ilan University, Faculty of Jewish Studies, Rabbinical office. ...certain prohibitions become allowed without a doubt because of lifethreatening circumstances, like for example eating non-kosher food {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help). Debresser (talk) 19:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the ref. I've just added it. --AFriedman (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I saw that before you posted this note. :) But why not use the whole reference? it is a cite web. Debresser (talk) 20:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by "use the whole reference? It is a cite web?" --AFriedman (talk) 20:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You gave only the url and the quote. Here on this page, if you view it in edit mode, is a whole {{Cite web}} template. Debresser (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

 Done I've put the citation in the article as a "cite web" template. --AFriedman (talk) 21:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Blood, explanation in Torah

AFriedman, you made this edit, and I have reverted it. I don't understand why you made the edit. I also don't understand the edit summary that you provided for it. Your edit summary says the edit that I had previously made was not appropriately placed. I believe it was appropriately placed. It was placed right after the area in the article discussing reasons for the laws of kashrus. It is of course a reason for one of the laws of kashrus.

You say in your edit summary that the source that I provided is incorrect. Can you please explain that?

This is the source that I provided, and the following is the relevant material from that source:

"The Torah prohibits consumption of blood. Lev. 7:26-27; Lev. 17:10-14. This is the only dietary law that has a reason specified in Torah: we do not eat blood because the life of the animal (literally, the soul of the animal) is contained in the blood. This applies only to the blood of birds and mammals, not to fish blood. Thus, it is necessary to remove all blood from the flesh of kosher animals."

Is there a reason you doubt the veracity of the web site I'm deriving that information from, or is there some other reason you feel our article should not rely on the above material? If you have material which contradicts this material, could you bring it to my attention? Bus stop (talk) 13:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I also didn't understand that edit by AFriedman. BTW, Bus stop, your last edit changing the order of the sentence about the reasons for kashrut laws was a good catch. Debresser (talk) 15:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You see, I'm not a bad egg. : ) Bus stop (talk) 15:27, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You just got lucky. Admit it. :)) Debresser (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Judaism 101 is accurate about the Torah's rationale for not eating blood. What isn't accurate is the idea that blood is the *only* dietary restriction with a rationale given in the Torah. To give you an example:

• The sciatic nerve prohibition: Jacob wrestles with an angel in the Book of Bereshith (Genesis). "He [the angel] touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him...And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed..Therefore the children of Israel eat not of the sinew which shrank, which is upon the hollow of the thigh, unto this day: because he [the angel] touched the hollow of Jacob's thigh in the sinew that shrank." Bereshith 32:25-32.

From this passage, I don't agree with Judaism 101 that blood is the *only* dietary prohibition whose explanation is in the Torah. This seems like an explanation of the sciatic nerve prohibition to me. How many dietary passages have explanations and how many don't does not seem to me like an essential part of the dietary restrictions section, so I've changed the section to be more accurate. --AFriedman (talk) 02:56, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

AFriedman, that is original research. Do you have a source for your assertion? Something may "seem" like an explanation for something, but we must go by reliable sources. What is required is a verifiable source. Bus stop (talk) 03:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I've found a verifiable source which agrees that the sciatic nerve passage is also an explanation--"the Torah explains that Jacob's sciatic nerve...was 'wrenched'...and thus that the children of Israel are forbidden from eating the sciatic nerve" from [6]. My source is also the Torah passage I cited above, and with this additional resource it is not OR to say that Judaism 101 is wrong about blood being the only dietary prohibition which is explained.

A couple more comments about your edits:

1. Kosher wine in Conservative Judaism: Your new wording implies that Rabbi Dorff's ruling is universal for Conservative Judaism, whereas mine allows that it is not. I'm pretty sure some Conservative Jews side with the Orthodox and avoid non-kosher wine, despite the ruling I'd cited. The previous wording also includes a more general statement about Conservative Judaism that explains where Rabbi Dorff is coming from.
2. Please do not spell "Kashrut" ending in "s." People who don't know that the 2 spellings mean the same thing might be confused, and since this is an article about all of Judaism it's preferable to use the normative rather than a specifically Ashkenazic spelling.
3. I've deleted the separate blood paragraph because it is now redundant. The main "rationale for Kashrut" passage currently has all the correct information that was there.

--AFriedman (talk) 04:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous

AFriedman, You are reverting my edits in under 5 minutes. You are not giving me the courtesy of any space in which to participate in this article. I do not believe there is even one edit that I have made that you have not reverted. I have probably made a dozen edits, over the past couple of weeks, and I believe every one of them you have reverted. I am only making edits with accompanying sources. You do not own this article.

This is your latest revert of an edit by me. It is sourced information, that is not already in the article. I am trying to improve the article. It seems to me you are acting in a trigger-happy way. You are not allowing me the degree of room in which to demonstrate the vision I might have concerning improving this section of this article. Your "vision" is not the only "vision." Allow me the courtesy of the time space in which to work.

Sourced information deserves a certain status. Wikipedia has a sad reputation of being unreliable. Sourced information matters. Please don't immediately remove subject matter that is very deliberately being placed in the article with an accompanying reliable source.

Please try to control yourself. Bus stop (talk) 01:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I reverted because the information I thought was inaccurate, despite being sourced, is "All food growing in or on the ground are kosher (e.g., vegetables and grains). All food grown from the ground are kosher, for example the fruit of trees." For example, in the Land of Israel, fruit from trees less than 3 years old cannot be eaten. See this information about the subject from a Kosher food certification agency. This site, from an Orthodox Jewish outreach organization, describes how produce in the Land of Israel cannot be eaten if it was grown in the Sabbath year (occurring once every seven years). These are examples of situations in which food growing in or on the ground is not kosher, and food grown from the ground is not kosher.

In the past, I have supported many of the changes you made. To name a few, I've kept the reference to "people" instead of "Jews" who observe Kashrut (I noticed that change and thought it was an improvement--did you) and the description of "keeping kosher" as a colloquialism (wasn't in the article until you added it). I even re-wrote the entire Kashrut section on 13 October so it would better accommodate your criticism of the sentence about pork.

I'm not after you in any way. This is not the first time I've reverted edits I thought were inaccurate. On 2 November, I changed my own edits to the introduction as soon as I realized what I'd written about Samaritanism had accuracy issues, and I mentioned this as a reason for the revert. We all screw up sometimes, even when we mean well. --[[User

I have also tried to eplain to him on his talkpage that since his is so obviously ignorant on the subject, he should perhaps better refrain from editing this article. He seems to have taken is personally, alas. Debresser (talk) 02:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Have you tried to explain that on my Talk page, Debresser? That I am "obviously ignorant?" How long have you been editing Wikipedia? Do you make a habit of opening dialogue with your fellow Wikipedians by informing them that they are obviously ignorant? Is it my fault that I have taken it "personally, alas?"

Does the concept of "constructive criticism" have any resonance for you? Bus stop (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, it does. If you were knowledgable in the subject matter, that would have made perfect sense, but as it is, it is a waist of time. Reading the article is more appropriate for you than editing it. And no need to ask how long or how short I have been on Wikipedia, or how I start discussions with users. What is true in this specific case will not be true in other cases. Apart from the fact that this is hardly the first time you have been shown to be unaware of certain aspects of Jewish law on this talkpage. Debresser (talk) 03:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Debresser, I'm not literally asking you how long you have edited Wikipedia. I am expressing surprise at the way you relate to people, specifically me. Bus stop (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand this is a bitter pill for you to swallow, but that does not make it less true. And it surely is for the best of the encyclopedia that its editors should refrain from writing about subjects they do not know well enough. Debresser (talk) 03:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Debresser, Wikipedia is based on sources. That is the lifeblood of Wikipedia. Thus far in our interactions, which admittedly only span 2 weeks, I have been bringing reliable sources for any contention I have made — you have not. You have been reverting my information without bringing any sources to support anything. That is a fact. Can you show me even one instance in which you have brought even one source?

Please, try to use sources in the future. You may think your authority on a subject is sufficient, but the rest of us would probably prefer to see sources. And that is the way Wikipedia is supposed to operate. Bus stop (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Debresser, I think comments like this are inappropriate. Bus stop is making constructive edits to the article, citing reliable sources. The fact that the source may be incomplete or wrong is no reason to criticize Bus stop. Please try to comment on content, not on the contributor. (Easier said than done, I know, but we all have to try anyway.) — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Malik Shabazz, all information added to Wikipedia is going to be incomplete (your word). I will be the first to assert that the material that I have added to the kashrut section of the Judaism article has been incomplete. That is the way an article gets written. When I add that "all plants are kosher," that obviously is not the whole story. There are myriad ways in which what started out as a plant with the potential to be kosher, ended up as an unkosher plant, or an unkosher foodstuff. These ideas are developed in successive sentences. Is a cow or a pig kosher? Obviously the cow is the kosher animal. But can a cow result in meat which is not kosher? Obviously it can. We begin by stating those raw products that have the potential to be kosher. We move on to show the ways that kosher status can be maintained or lost. That is how this section of this article should be written. The trouble is any attempt I have made to have any input has been immediately reverted. This, despite the bringing of reliable sources. This despite the obvious fact that Debresser has not made any attempt to bring even one source. I don't accept his authority. And I shouldn't accept his authority. This is Wikipedia. Sources are what matter. Bus stop (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I second this administrator and left a similar message on Debresser's talk page a little while ago. --AFriedman (talk) 05:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) AFriedman, That information requires separate sentences. All information is not contained in one sentence. The entire Judaism article is not written in one sentence. The Kashrut section of the Judaism article is not written in one sentence. If fruit from trees, in Israel, under 3 years of age, cannot be eaten, that requires a separate sentence. And that separate sentence is not necessarily situated directly below the sentence stating that all fruit from trees are kosher. The human brain naturally integrates information. All things are not necessarily spelled out, or the article would be a gazillion words long. If you wish to tighten up information, please do so. But don't revert, revert, revert. Ditto for produce grown during the seventh year. Ditto for a variety of other instances and circumstances. But if these situations are to be described in this article that description will be taken up in separate sentences. One sentence does not convey all information. It never has, and it probably never will. And to put a fine point on this, the produce is not un-kosher, it is a particular circumstance that renders the produce un-kosher. That may be a conceptual difference. But your reverting over such matters is going overboard. Bus stop (talk) 02:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Your call--do you think all the information I put on the Talk page should be added to the article? I think a slightly longer Kashrut section is still acceptable, but as I said, I'm concerned that if we keep adding information about Kashrut, the article would become too long and too overwhelmingly focused on this one little aspect of Judaism. As-is, I think the Kashrut section is a decent and fully referenced overview of the subject, which is an appropriate goal for a section in the main Judaism article. It needn't and shouldn't be complete and that is what more specialized articles are for. --AFriedman (talk) 03:06, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

AFriedman was completely correct to revert you, and I have later done the same as well. 1. This is called non-kosher, and 2. details about this are not supposed to cloud this article. There is another article about this subject where this can be dealt with in more detail. Debresser (talk) 03:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

AFriedman, you (and Debresser) are removing an absolutely essential aspect of kashrut. Kashrut is the distinction between that which can be eaten (is kosher) and that which cannot be eaten (is not kosher). It is just as important to describe those categories of foods that are kosher as it is to describe those categories of food that are not kosher. Generally speaking, the produce section of your supermarket is kosher. Can you find anything un-kosher in it? Sure. The prepackaged salads, if they have not been checked for insects, are not kosher, unless it is somehow known for sure that there are no insects in there. Are we talking about a fruit that has already been cut up by the employees of the store? Then it may not be kosher. The knife used to cut that fruit may be problematic. There are a lot of things that can introduce problems. But the point should be gotten across that the basic rule is that plants are all kosher. The planting of different types of seeds side by side within a certain area can render that which is grown there un-kosher. But the general rule is that plants are kosher. The article doesn't even say that vegetation is kosher! That is a glaring oversight. Bus stop (talk) 04:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

A few sentences into paragraph 1, the reader would recognize that the term "kashrut" specifically refers to the dietary laws. This is the "essential point" you mentioned. There are so many Kashrut laws, however, that they don't fit into the few little paragraphs we've got. "Many of the laws refer to animal products" essentially says that not as many of them refer to plants. People who read this article should get the idea. --AFriedman (talk) 04:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

AFriedman, if as you say there are "...so many Kashrut laws..." then perhaps as many as feasible should be mentioned. Perhaps the article can do without nonessentials.

Does the reader need to know that "The pig is arguably the most well-known example of a non-kosher animal.?"

Do we need to know that "People who observe these laws are colloquially said to be "keeping kosher."?

Should we be tossing around the terms "treif" and "treifah" without even defining, and translating it? This is the English Wikipedia, and "treif" is hardly standard English.

Do we even need to go into the blah blah blah of "Concerning birds, a list of non-kosher species is given in the Torah. The exact translations of many of the species have not survived, and some non-kosher birds' identities are no longer certain. However, traditions exist about the kashrut status of a few birds. For example, both chickens and turkeys are permitted in most communities."?

And this blah blah blah: "Based on the Biblical injunction against cooking a kid in its mother's milk, this rule is mostly derived from the Oral Torah, the Talmud and Rabbinic law."

Before even stating the essential outline of what kashrut is, the article is already addressing the virtually intractable differing points of view involving "the Oral Torah," the "Talmud," and "Rabinnic law." Isn't that the sort of stuff that would be better taken up in the more expanded article on kashrut?

By the way, is Conservative Judaism "modernist?" From where do you derive that?

As a general criticism, the kashrut section is bogged down in minutia and lacking in a general outline.

The above comments are all only addressed to the "Kashrut" section of this article. Bus stop (talk) 14:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The reader needs to know some of the basic terminology about Kosher foods, including "keeping kosher" and "treif" (the latter is commonly used in English sentences and is in the Collins Dictionary and Thesaurus). "Treif" is defined in the article. The idea of adding the colloquialism part to the "keeping kosher" sentence was yours. The pig sentence is important because pigs, as per the citation, are a quintessential symbol of the non-kosher animal. Many Jews who do not follow the other dietary laws refrain from eating pork. The birds, mammals and seafood sentences each discuss important categories of Kashrut, and the rules about birds present a distinctive problem with a noteworthy solution.

The rules about meat + milk are not accepted by all branches of Judaism, although they are accepted by most. See this site, representative of one strain of Reform Jewish thought that has converged in many respects with Karaite Judaism. The paragraph about the topic tries to make this point clear by discussing which branches follow the meat + milk rules and why. The links to Oral Torah, Talmud and Rabbinic law are intended to give people access to more information about the Rabbinic theology, but as per the limitations of a main topic article do not discuss the exact rationale for the laws.

An outline of Kashrut is given in the first few sentences--that the laws of Kashrut are the dietary laws. In the next few paragraphs, some of them are enumerated, and the later part of the section focuses on Kashrut's rationale. Why is this a problem for you? --AFriedman (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

AFriedman, it is a problem because you and Debresser are not permitting me to edit. You and Debresser have reverted every edit I've made to the kashrus section, sometimes within 5 minutes. You and Debresser have reverted sourced material. It is not your article. Bus stop (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

By this point, based on some of your previous posts, I think you understand the accuracy issues that prompted the reverts. --AFriedman (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

AFriedman, What are you referring to? What "accuracy issues" do you have in mind? Based on my "previous posts?"

Which "previous posts" do you have in mind? I don't know what you are referring to. Could you be a bit more explicit? Bus stop (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

On November 10, you wrote: "Plant-based foods are rendered not kosher, of course, by kashrut laws that are related to plant-based foods. Indeed, under some circumstances, even plant-based foods can be not kosher." This was our argument about why the speedily reverted sentences did not belong in the article. --AFriedman (talk) 01:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

AFriedman, Any food can be not kosher. A food that starts out kosher, can become not kosher. All plants are kosher. Even a kosher animal is not kosher if certain circumstances transpire. How do you distinguish, for the purpose of the subject under discussion, between a camel and a goat? One is not considered a kosher animal; the other is considered a kosher animal. But the animal that is considered a kosher animal can become unkosher under a variety of circumstances. Similarly, all plants are kosher. That means rhubarb is kosher, apples are kosher, wheat is kosher, and grapes are kosher. But can any of these plants become unkosher foods? Of course they can. What are you quibbling over? Is it impossible to convey this in an article? You and Debresser have been reverting my attempts to put the most basic information into the article. Kashrut is not only about what is prohibited, but about what is permitted. The entire plant kingdom is permitted, and yet you and Debresser have been reverting my every attempt to put that simple edit in the article.

Sometimes you two folks have been reverting me in under five minutes elapsed time after making an edit. There has been no way for me to proceed because you two have been acting as the gatekeepers for this article, at least for the kashrut section (which is the only section of this article that I have tried to edit), at least for the past two weeks.

You and Debresser have been doing this with other types of information that I have been trying to put into the kashrus section of this article as well. I have brought well-sourced information, which you both have reverted. The reason that you have given is that the information was incorrect. WP:VERIFY says that: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." You both have set yourselves up as authorities on factuality. You have rejected well-sourced information. You have not brought sources to support your contention that my material was incorrect. And you two are merely a consensus of two. Bus stop (talk) 11:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps AFriedman and I have reverted part (stress the word "part") of your edits because they were incorrect or didn't fit in the way the kashrut section is set up, or any good reason? Did you consider such a possibility? And did you consider the possibility that you don't understand or agree with the arguments that were brought forth against your edits, not because such arguments were absent or incorrect, but because you seem institutionally incapable of understanding other points of view, in spite of stating the opposite? Just consider such a scenario... Thank you. Debresser (talk) 15:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Debresser, "incorrect" requires a source. Who said that the material I added to an article was incorrect — you did? You must bring sources. AFriedman must bring sources. The authority of both of you is not enough. Just as I am required to bring sources, so too are you two required to bring sources.

Furthermore — it is not necessarily unacceptable for sources and the material they support to contradict one another. An article can legitimately contain contradictory information. The article, under those circumstances, should acknowledge the divergence of opinions on the point of contention, in order that it not look like a mistake, but it is certainly possible to find language to convey the existence of notions that definitely do not agree with one another. But of course as in all information added, all material must be supported by reliable sources.

But I don't think that was even the case. You and AFriedman were simply reverting. I never got to sentence number two. I literally was in the edit window, when I noticed that my previous edit was not there any more! There was no way to proceed. You and AFriedman have acted in the capacity of the unofficial gatekeepers. Furthermore, it is uncomfortable to operate in a hostile atmosphere. Not only were you two reverting my edits, but you, Debresser, were clearly, explicitly asking me to go away and leave the article alone. That is why this has spilled over into this space, with all these recriminations. Bus stop (talk) 15:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry about hurting your feelings. But please, I do not "simply revert". Ever. I always prefer to leave even a dubious edit, unless I consider it to be unequivocally incorrect. I edit many articles, most of them while fixing various error categories as a Wikignome, and I have to adhere to stringent standards to avoid making wrong edits in unfamiliar articles. Debresser (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Intro on Judaism

Wow, I did not think that my minor edit would be such a big deal but as TWO users have reverted me I'm just going to post this here. I left the following, as support of my edit, on Slrubenstein's talk page. I think it's pretty self explanatory. Especially if you know anything about the English language, history, or religion in general. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 02:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I changed "a set of beliefs and practices" to "a religion" and you changed it back. First of all, per any dictionary in the world, "a set of beliefs and practices" IS the definition of the word religion. I'm NOT changing the meaning of the article whatsoever. I'm just making it more uniform with the Christianity and Islam articles and therefore more user friendly. However, in your edit you said that, "not everyone views it as a religion." Uh, what are you talking about exactly? Judaism IS one of the oldest religions in the world, that's just a fact. It's a religion just the same as Christianity and Islam and Buddhism and Neo-Paganism are religions. The reason America is a Judeo-Christian society is because Judaism and Christianity are the two main religions that have historically been practiced, and have greatly influenced, this country [America]. All the religions I just mentioned have religious texts that are easily identifiable (such as the Qur'an, Old Testament, Poetic Edda, etc.). I'm sure your edit was in good faith, but I just figured I'd let you know why it was a little off. Cheers. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 01:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, one of the first things it says in the article is that, "This article is about the Jewish religion. For the main article about ethnic, historic, and cultural aspects of the Jewish identity, see Jew." Now, I could tell you that that means the article IS about the religion known as Judaism, but I think it's self-explanatory. Perhaps when you made that edit you were thinking about the culture of the ethnic group identified as Jews, but as it said in the sentence I quoted, that's a different article. The article we edited is about the religion, not the ethnicity. Happy editing. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 01:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, I just found some more evidence. It says in the second paragraph of the Judaism article, "It is one of the oldest monotheistic religions,[7] and the oldest to survive into the present day.[8][9]" I rest my case now. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 01:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

If I may add a word. I agree with both of you, but most of all with the old version. Because there are those who see (their) Judaism not as a religion. This is also well-documented. Because I understand both points of view I have not made any edits in this disagreement, but such is my point of view. Debresser (talk) 02:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to guess that this issue is all just a misunderstanding. My support is quite logical and undeniable in this instance. I understand that Judaism as an ethnicity and Judaism as a religion are two different things. But this article is about the religion. It says so many times in the article. Judaism as an ethnicity is a different article that already exists. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 02:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect to Debresser, we need to remind ourselves that it doesn't matter what we feel about Judaism - it is what can be verified and sourced. Judaism is a religion, and there should be uniformity between the main articles of the world's great religions. I therefore agree with Blizzard Beast's edit. Best, A Sniper (talk) 02:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Blizzard Beast and Debresser, I think you've made strong arguments and I'm going to back out as well. Looking at the main "religion" article, it seems as if these 2 wordings are synonymous even if some culturally and religiously involved Jews are uncomfortable with the idea of Judaism as a religion. A religion doesn't need to be theistic--Unitarian Universalism is not and doesn't even have much of a core set of beliefs and practices. --AFriedman (talk) 02:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we have consensus - religion is even broader than what was there previously. Religion it is. Best, A Sniper (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well. Although I still think all was well as it was and Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it would have applied. Debresser (talk) 02:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you my fellow wikipedians. I'm glad this could be swiftly solved. And Debresser, I do agree with that rule. The reason for the change was just for the sake of uniformity and matching other big religion articles such as Christianity and Islam. Encyclopedias should strive for uniformity. We do try that on wikipedia, but it's usually quite difficult. Especially with all the users that can edit, each with their own background and opinions. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 03:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Plant-based foods

The article at present states in the Kashrut section that "Many of the laws apply to animal-based foods." It shouldn't be saying this. Kashrut is a set of guidelines that determine what is permissible to eat and what is not permissible to eat. This is applicable whether concerning ourselves with animal-based foods or plant-based foods. Bus stop (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a simplification of the issue. And it is definitely true that most of the kashrut laws are related to animal-based food. Since the demands of kashrut of plant-based food are more specific, they do not have to be in this general article. All of this has been discussed before at length, and is rather redundant IMHO. Debresser (talk) 14:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Debresser, You say that "… most of the kashrut laws are related to animal-based food."

No, they are not. I made the edit which asserted that all plant-based foods are kosher. You (and AFriedman) reverted me. Both of you have argued that under some circumstances plant-based foods may not be kosher.

Plant-based foods are rendered not kosher, of course, by kashrut laws that are related to plant-based foods.

Indeed, under some circumstances, even plant-based foods can be not kosher. But this is only due to the existence of multitudinous kashrut laws that are related to plant-based foods.

Therefore, please remove the incorrect assertion from the article that, "Many of the laws apply to animal-based foods."

The first order of business is assembling the information for the kashrut section on a logical framework. If space permits further edits can elaborate on that basic information.

Furthermore the reader always has the readily available option of clicking on the link to the Kashrut article if a more thorough exploration is desired.

This article has as its logical task the outlining of the basic laws that constitute kashrut.

The problem is that the kashrut section at present lacks an appropriate logical structure. It was written willy-nilly. Now you (and AFriedman) are making the error of considering almost everything in it to be sacrosanct.

The material in the kashrut section needs to be altered in order to array it in an easy-to-see outline form. Bus stop (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Bus stop, "Many of the laws apply to animal-based foods" is specifically worded this way because some do not, in fact a number do not. One is actually mentioned in the article, the law about non-kosher wines. The sentence does not even say "Most of the laws apply to animal-based foods." Because of its appropriately limited scope, it is a correct sentence. Also, the laws about kashrut are essentially a list. This approach to presenting such information is consistent with other articles. See, for example, a summary of the major attractions in Detroit, Michigan here, written in a listlike fashion but in paragraph form. Detroit is a FA and this treatment of Detroit's attractions, which are scattered throughout Detroit as Kashrut laws are scattered throughout the Torah and elsewhere, is similar to our treatment of Kashrut. If anything, our treatment makes more of an attempt to bring the Kashrut laws together. Here is a summary of the dietary laws in the main article about Islam, which is also a FA. It presents an even rougher overview of Dhabiha Halal than this article does about Kashrut, and the section is considered complete. I don't think the section was written willy-nilly given the nature of the information being presented. --AFriedman (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It is irrelevant. And at this moment just about unknowable. First you state the kashrut laws, then you allow the reader to count the number that apply to plant-based foods, versus the number that apply to animal-based foods. It is also original research. Where is your source for the contention that, "Many of the laws apply to animal-based foods?" Bus stop (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

"Whether a particular food is considered kosher or not usually has to do with whether any substance or product used in its manufacture was derived from a non-kosher animal or even an animal that is kosher but was not slaughtered in the prescribed manner." from [7]. Given that at least several of the laws are about meat and other animal products, I think what's in the article is a fair statement that is not OR. --AFriedman (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That statement is only addressing animal-based foods. That statement says nothing about plant-based foods at all. What point are you trying to make? I have seen you do this before. A source has to state something quite clearly in order for it to support a contention. Your source concerning the sciatic nerve in relation to the incident involving Jacob and the angel, said nothing about that incident being the reason for that law of kashrus. That author merely mentioned the two things in passing. One might be able to guess that one is the origin of the other. But as far as a reason given for that law of kashrus — you have not found a source for that. Please learn the difference between reliable sources and original research. Bus stop (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Bus stop, I suggest you look at Wikipedia:Drop_the_stick_and_back_slowly_away_from_the_horse_carcass. BTW, the horse carcass is not kosher :). --AFriedman (talk) 03:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Judaism versus Jews

I made some edits to the heading. What needs to be clear is the distinction between Judaism and Jews. Obviously, Jews refers to people. There is some division over what "Judaism" refers to. In the early 1800s Napolean convened a "Sanhedrin" in France, which decided that Judaism would be a religion. This is an approach that many other Jews in Europe took, in the post-Enlightenment period. But the concept of "religion" did not exist in Judaism before this time, and many Jews today do not consider Judaism a religion (for example, Europeans distinguish between religious and secular law, but the Talmud contains examples of both - clearly what would be called secular law in the Talmud is as much a part of "Judaism" as the religious laws). I have no desire to eliminate fom this article any mention of religion, but if by Judaism we are referring to the beliefs and practices that all Jews today identify with their covenant with God that has its origins thousands of years ago, it is an anachronistic over-simplification to call Judaism a "religion." It is, but it is other things as well. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Judaism is primarily a religion. More than anything else Judaism is a religion. I have no source at the moment to bring for that, and I'm sure sources can be found that contradict one another in addressing the question that you are raising. But I also have doubts that there is even a question there. Judaism, if it is a religion, allows for non-practice. That being the case, what practical distinction is there between the religious individual and the irreligious individual, as concerns their practice of Judaism? Bus stop (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Judaism is a religion. I have changed it back to what the consensus was (see discussion above). Please don't switch it back. Thanks. A Sniper (talk) 19:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You are going against consensus. [8] edit broke with consensus, and I simply restored the consensus version. Now you wish to break with consensus again. You are pushing one point of view. Let us leave the opening neutral, as it was before someone broke consensus a couple of days ago, and leave a discussion for later. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry, Slrubenstein but I also understand the discussion above to mean that your edit is against the consensus. Perhaps you got mixed up with all the edits of late. Debresser (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Please, Debresser, show me which part of the discussion above shows that my edit is against consensus. I realize A Sniper, who is apparently part of Navnløs's tag team, claims I am editing against consensus. But Debresser, shouldn't one provide evidence? Why don't you actualy investigate the facts before supporting these POV pushers? All I did was revert an edit that changed the consensus version. How, pleas tell me, did Navnløs's edit which 'changed how the text read and had read for quite a long time suddelnly without any discussion at all become the "consensus" version? I am sorry, but changing a stable text without discussion does not create "consensus." Slrubenstein | Talk 22:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that A Sniper called consensus prematurely. Please don't make a statement like "A Sniper...is part of Navnløs' tag team" unless it is relevant, and without backing it up. However, you may want to read the arguments in the earlier section "Intro on Judaism" on this page, which I also found convincing. Judaism allows for non-practice, but so, in principle, does Islam. For example, some people consider Barack Obama to be a Muslim because his father was, just like some people consider Madeleine Albright to be Jewish because her mother was. --AFriedman (talk) 23:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That may be. But you actually made a mistake when claiming to revert to the consensus version. The disambiguation hatnote you used was not the consensus one. See also my reply to your post on my talkpage. Debresser (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

If user Slrubinstein would have gone up two conversations, then perhaps the revert wouldn't have been so, uh, wrong. And saying I'm part of a 'tag team' is a weak defence for a lame revert. As has already been demonstrated, using the word religion can apply to any denomination of Judaism, including those without set doctrine or rituals. Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I regret using the term tag team. The reason I did not "go up two conversations" is that Blizzard posted all of that after I made my restoration to the consensus version. And the fact remains that it is only after the Haskalah that it became common in Europe for people to think of Judaism as a religion; before the Haskalah it was not a religion as such; and there are many Jews today who do not consider it a religion. NPOV has to allow for BOTH points of view.

I accept both views. I accept your view, that for some people it is a religion. Why is it so hard for you to accept the views of people who do not agree with you? Wikipedia is NOT a place to impose ONE point of view. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That is correct. Then why is it you so stubbornly edit war with people who revert your edits, despite the fact that your edits deviate from the consensus version of many months? Not to mention that this is not the first time I have seen you do this... Debresser (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

To Bus stop: Kashrut

Bus stop, if you really have a specific vision of how the Kashrut section should look, I think the best thing to do is to rewrite the section so we understand exactly what you want. IMO the existing section is clear, but then again, I'm rather familiar with the subject. Perhaps you could write an alternative section in one of your Userpage subpages, and share it with us. Or, I'd be happy to lay off changing your edits to the Kashrut section for a few days or so, so you can think about what you want. I think it's unlikely that all your changes will be outright reverted after a short period of time. More probably, you'll motivate other people to edit the section and your ideas will be incorporated into a new and improved Kashrut section. What do you think of this idea? --AFriedman (talk) 01:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Judaism

For over six months, the lead to this article described Judaism as a set of "beliefs and practices." On November 9, without any discussion on the talk page, Navnlos changed this to "religion." I do not believe that we should break with a stable consensus wording without full discussion. I reverted Navnlos's edit. I thought that this would be non-controversial (Navnlos was bold, I reverted - it was up to her to discuss I thought) but Navnlos did not ike my restoration of the consensus version. I am sure we can at least all agree that the matter should be discussed. I have tried to bring forward my reasons, above. Perhaps that did not satisfy everyone, so I will try again.

By the way, thee is NO question that there is a difference between Judaism and Jews. We have a separate article on Jews, and I have no argument with that. The question is, how best to introduce the one article we have on Judaism.

There are a few reasons I think that iInstead of calling Judaism a religion it makes more sense to identify it as sets of beliefs and practices. This is more accurate and consistent with the reliable sources. In 1806 Napolean negotiated with Jewish leaders that the Jews would be accepted as citizens of France if they accepted Judaism as a religion with no claims to national autonomy (in the middle ages, many Jewish communities had a great deal of self-rule, under the protection of various princes, dukes, etc). Following the Enlightenment (haskalah) there was a major change in the way Jews lived, as well as their legal and cultural status in Europe, and one consequence of this was to think of Judaism as a religion.

As Debresser correctly points out in a discussion a couple of sections above, the view that Judaism is a religion is not shared by all Jews. It was not viewed by jews as a religion in the middle ages. The Talmud for example combines religious laws with secular laws. Those secular laws (e.g. tort law) are as much a part of Judaism as kashrus and shabbos.

The view that Judaism is a religion must be included in this article. But other views must be included as well. Some view judaism as a religious civilization. Some view it as a culture.

It is a mistake to refer to the article on "Jews" as an article on Jewish culture, because Jdaism is an essential part of Jewish culture. This is not just my personal feeling, there is a host of sources, reliable sources, that say that Judaism is a part of Jewish culture. Whoever wrote the line that the article on Jews is about Jewish culture, and that this article is not about Jewish culture, was I am sure well-intentioned and made an honest mistake. There is nothing wrong with fixing it thruogh a minor change. No one doubts that the article on Jews is an article on people. Why would saying so be controversial?

The key thing is that multiple reliable sources make different claims about what "Judaism" is, and this article has to be inclusive. no one should deny that one view of Judaism is that it is a religion. But no one should deny that it is other things to other people. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

So you say that you made a change to this article, and that you feel certain that that was The Right Thing To Do. Well, I and others disagree, so your initiative was reverted. WP:BRD is relevant. Do not continue edit warring about your non-consensus edits. Debresser (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Currently the lead is more or less what the consensus has been for many months. Let us deal with things one at a time. I will not edit the disambiguation but I will make a point: disambiguations ought to follow the lead of the articles. Articles should not be rewritten to fit the disambiguation statement. My reasoning is this: the articles are written before the disambiguation explanations are written. I think a good deal of thought and discussion goes into the editing of articles, I think that relatively little thought goes into the disambiguation phrases. usually it is just some editor adding it to be helpful to readers. I do not know who wrote the disambiguation sentence for this article, but I want to be cleear: I am sure it was written in good faith. I only suggest that it was probably written quickly and without much discussion or consideration. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

My objections in the discussion above notwithstanding (about the fact that for many their Judaism is more than or even something totally different from a religion), I think there is no doubt that this article is about the religious aspects of Judaism only. I say so based on the contents. The article Jew on the other hand has well developed culture and history sections. So I think the consensus hatnote is correct. Debresser (talk) 17:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you and I use "culture" differently. To me, the Talmud and the Midrash are important parts of Jewish culture, and many parts of the Talmud and the Midrash, while central to Judaism, are not about religion as such. And the place to expand on these is in this article, not in the article on Jews. The "cultural" stuff discussed in the article on Jews is generally variations in dress and diet and other things that are the result of Jews adapting to life in different societies because of the galus. But there are other things that are central to Jewish culture regardless of where Jews live, and these things are mentioned in this article and if there should be any expansion of them, they belong here. I agree that people especially recently have put more energy into developing the "religious" aspects of Judaism (I think it is stil problematic that before the haskalah Jews may not have considered these things "religious") in this article, but that only means other parts should be developed in this article, as Wikipedia is always a work in progress. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I have said that my view - that Judaism can refer to a religion but can also refer to other things, or, put somewhat differently, that Judaism cannot be defined only as a religion - has reliable sources. I'll provide three.

Mordecai Kaplan 1934 Judaism as a Civilization:

To begin with, we have to analyze the very notion of difference To be different may mean to be both other and unlike, or to be other only. Otherness is difference in entity, unlikeness is difference in quality. Unlikelness presupposes otherness, but otherness is compatible with either likeness or unlikeness. Otherness may therefore be considered primary, and unlikeness only secondary. hence, when Jewish life is endangered and we try to conserve it, we necessarily try to conserve that which differentiates it from non-Jewish life. but here a fallicy insinuates itself. We make the mistake of believing that what we chiefly try to conserve is that wherein Jewish life is unlike non-Jewish life, or what may be termed as differential. We concentrate on the religious aspect of Jewish life, because it is that aspect which is most conspicuously most unlike, and because we assume it to be the least troublesom to justify. But the truth of the matter is that what is at stake in our day is the very maintenance of Jewish life as a distinct society entity. Its very otherness is in jeopardy. .... The Jew's religion is but one element in his life that is challenged by the present environment. it is a mistake, therefore, to conceive the task of conserving jewish life as essentially a task of saving the Jew's religion .... the task before the Jew is to save the otherness of Jewish life; the element of unlikeness will take care of itself .... Judaism as otherness is thus something far more comprehensive than Jewish religion. it contains the nexus of a history, literature, language, social organization, folk sanctions, standards of conduct, social and spiritual ideals, esthetic values, which in their totality form a civilization. 177-178

Joseph B. Soloveitchik 1983 [1944] Halakhic Man:

Halakhic man reflects two opposing selves; two disparate images are embodied within his soul and spirit. On the one hand he is as far removed from homo religiosus as east is from west and identical, in many respects, to prosaic, cognitive man; on the other hand he is a man of God, possessor of an ontological approach that is devoted to God and of a wold view saturated with the radiance of the Divine Presense. For this reason it is difficult to analyze halakhic man's religious conscousness by applying the terms and traits that descriptive psychology and modern philosophy of religion have used to characterize the religious personality ... The image that halakhic man presents is singular, even strange. he is of a type that is unfamiliar to students of religion . (3)

Shaye J.D. Cohen 1999 The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties.

But Ioudaismos, the ancestor of our English word Judaism, means more than just religion. (7-8)

"...in this first ocurence of the term, Ioudaismos has not yet be reduced to designation of a religion. It means rather "the aggregate of all those characteristics that makes Judaeans Judaean (or Jews Jewish)." Among thse charactertistics, to be sure, are practices and beliefs that we would today call "religious" but these practices and beliefs are not the sole content of the term. (105-106)

I am not arguing that "Judaism never means a religion" or that "No one thinks of Judaism as a religion." If you believe these things you do not have to provide me with proof, I believe you. It is only if you assert that "Judaism" is used by all people to refer only to a religion that i would ask you for reliable sources to support that. As for me, I am only arguing that in the past Judaism has meant other things besides religion; that some Jews view Judaism in terms other than religion; and that even Jews who care deeply about God have some trouble with the "fit" between the Western concept "religion" and "Judaism."

Other users, - Debresser and AFreidman (with whom I have not always agreed) share my uncertainties about changing the consensus version of "beliefs and practices" to "religion. So I hope we will have a full discussion before any further attempts to change the article.Slrubenstein | Talk 01:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Your WP:OR aside, Blizzard Beast made an edit, there was discussion, it was not reverted - and then you came along. The word religion formats the article in line with the other world religions. If you have a problem with this and want to reach WP:3RR, go grab an admin. A Sniper (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)