Talk:Jews/Archive 5

message: I want to question the claim (not only in this article) that Israeli law uses a different definition for "Jew" than Halakha does.  In practice that may appear to be the case, but on looking closely at the immigration laws and regulations (I'm not so sure about other instances) we find they say that certain people will be treated as Jews, or given the same privileges as Jews, and so on, not that they are Jews.  That is because Israeli law usually tries to avoid direct confrontation with Halakha. I  don't have the time to research this properly but if someone has access to the actual texts that would be nice. --Zero 17:38, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue here is the confusion between the Law of Return, which facilitates immigration to Israel, and the definition of a Jew for the purposes of marriage etc., which is that of halakha.  Those eligible under the Law of Return include the grandchildren of Jews (male or female), non-Jewish spouses of Jews, and people converted by an accepted list of Rabbis (Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform).  The Law of Return excludes Jews who have converted to another faith.  This is radically different from the halakhic definition of a Jew, which includes those people whose mother is a Jew, and those people who have converted according to halakha.  Halakha considers a person who converts to another faith to still be a Jew. Jayjg 17:49, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Everything you write is correct (but I'm not sure if you think you are agreeing with me or not).  My point is that the Law of Return does not say that someone converting to another religion is not a Jew, it only says that they are not going to be treated as Jews for immigration purposes.  So we can't say that the Law of Return uses a different definition of "Jew". It's a pedantic point. --Zero 19:20, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've significantly revised the section in question, let me know what you think.  Here is a link to the actual Law of Return and its amendments: http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/mfaarchive/1950_1959/Law%20of%20Return%205710-1950 Jayjg 20:35, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Israeli definition 

message: Some editors here are adamant that Karaites do not descend in any way from the movement created by Anan ben David, but that does not reflect the generally held by scholars, nor by all Karaites.  Of the five Karaite websites I have been able to find on the web, two recognized Anan's contribution to Karaism, two said nothing about Anan, and one said that Anan did not found Karaism, his movement was different from Karaism, and he used Rabbinic methods (the view, I believe, of the most persistent Karaite editor). Examples:
:The orginisation of the Karaites was rather loose and informal until the sevnth century c.e., but after that, due to Rabbanite coersion, it became necessary to organise and by the next century the first universally recognized leader of Karaism was ‘Anan Ben-Dawid. A member of an aristocratic Rabbinite family, he discovered the follies of Rabbanism, and wrote the first systematic non-Rabbinic theological document. While Karaism existed before him, this is why he is often noted as the father of Karaism. http://www.orahsaddiqim.org/History/Events/Movement_of_Karaism_-_The_Begininng.shtml (Karaite website)
:Then in the 8th century a last glimmer of hope appeared in the form of a shrewd leader named Anan ben David. Anan organized various anti- Talmudic elements and lobbied the Caliphate to establish a second Exilarchate for those who rejected the Talmud. The Muslims granted Anan and his followers the religious freedom to practice Judaism in their own way. Anan gathered a large following around him and his followers became known as the Ananites. Some time after Anan's death his followers merged with other anti-Talmudic groups and took on the name "Followers of the Bible" or in Hebrew "Bnei Mikra". Later "Bnei Mikra" was abbreviated into "Karaim" or in English "Karaites". http://www.karaite-korner.org/history.shtml (Karaite website) Jayjg 01:15, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some points to consider... 1) Did these groups call themselves Karaites, or were they *considered* Karaites because they didn't accept Rabbinical Authority? 2) There are various groups within Rabbinical/Orthodox Judaism. and 3) IZAK, there's no need to quote pages upon pages of what you've already said. --Josiah 07:06, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins of Karaite Judaism 

message: "The Magen David... is the symbol most commonly associated with Judaism today, but it is actually a relatively new Jewish symbol... In fact, the symbol is so rare in early Jewish literature and artwork that art dealers suspect forgery if they find the symbol in early works." (Source: )
I suggest we include both Magen David and menorah, "One of the oldest symbols of the Jewish faith is the menorah..." (the same source). 
IMHO, MD should consist out of two intertwined triangles. 
Also, the current image gets shifted (above/aside the table) with the change in the page width. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 03:03, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Jayjg 05:13, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would work, but I think a Torah scroll would work just as well :)--Josiah 02:46, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The symbol image: Magen David and/or Menorah? 

message: Judaism is not a combination of religious and secular. It is an "ism"--a belief system. It is the (English language) name of the Jewish religion. Jews practice Judaism when they do Jewish religious practice. A member of a secular Jewish organization like the Workman's Circle or a Zionist might be religiously devout Jews, but they are not practicing Judaism when they attend a meeting or engage in Zionist politics. -- Cecropia | Talk 04:54, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It is certainly a Jewish movement, and may seek to fulfill a goal of Jewish religion, but it is a political movement; it is not a religious practice. You may say it is a religiously inspired practice, though many Zionists are/were secularists. -- Cecropia | Talk 15:28, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: But Shinui does not view it as such; rather, they see it as a form of national liberation, as did almost all of the early Zionists, who were secular.  The Zionist Congresses were not prayer services or religious retreats.  Jayjg 18:09, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur strongly with Jayjg here. Many of my older relatives considered themselves Zionists. None of them were Orthodox, and few of them were more than nominally religious. Conversely, I know non-Zionist and even anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews. At all times since the advent of the Zionist movement some Zionists have doubtlessly been religiously motivated, but certainly some have not. -- Jmabel 02:15, Jul 8, 2004 (UTC)
*With the exception of the Satmar, no Religous Jew - whether Orthodox, Conservative, Reconstruction, Reform, Karaite, or otherwise - would say that Zionism is not an integral part of the Jewish Faith. Heck, even the Secular Jews would say that Zionism is an integral part of the Jewish Faith.--Josiah 02:49, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Zionism is a political movement intent on creating a Jewish homeland (usually in Israel), and is being confused with the religious belief that Jews as individuals should move to or live in Israel.  By the way, before WWII the Reform movement was anti-Zionist (both Zionism as a political movement, and against the idea that Jews should move to Israel), and that attitude still exists to some extent in Classical Reform. Jayjg 17:55, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Many Jews in the 20s, 30s, and 40s belonged to organizations which were profoundly secular and yet still Zionist; the Farband (a secular Socialist-Zionist) movement would be a prime example.  Zionism is a political movement, not a religious movement. Jayjg 17:55, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Umm... I thought it would be obvious? :) As the location of the ancient land of Israel, it would be a natural choice, and have cultural meaning even for secularists. But I was making the point that many other areas were considered with the goal of creating an independent home for Jews apart from the goal of religious destiny. -- Cecropia | Talk 15:18, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear, Uganda was offered by the British, and a motion was adopted to create a committee to investigate it as a temporary refuge for Russian Jews suffering from pogroms.  Even then, a large portion of the delegates walked out in protest. Jayjg 18:22, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

text: Yes, that was the feeling on the part of some delegates.  However, the majority of the delegates (including Herzl) thought the situation in Russia was so critical that it was worth investigating other locations as places of temporary refuge. Jayjg 18:47, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  JudaISM