Talk:Judaism/Archive 9

message: Now, Shykee, to respond to your requests, I will present a few sources.  In light of Tomer and JFW's comments let me repeat that this is about NPOV (which I think Shykee understands) - the issue is not what "the truth" is, the question is whether this is a view held by a significant group of people i.e. not me or Shykee personally.  This is what Dorff says about Conservative Judaism.  The paragraph is primarily about Conservative Judaism.  But, in order to make his point, he contrasts Conservative judaism to Orthodoxy.  Thus, he necessarily says something about Orthodoxy.  Given that this book was published by the major organization of Conservative Congragations in the US, I think it is fair to say it represents a major Conservative view (from (Elliott Dorff, 1977, Conservative Judaism: Our Ancestors to our Descendents United Synagogue of America p. 13):
:The fundamental doctrine of the historical approach [note: Dorff has already identified this as the approach used by Conservative scholars] is the claim that if we want to understand Judaism correctly, we must study it historically.  That is, when we examine Jewish texts, we must use the same intellectual techniques that we would use if we were analyzing the documents of any other group of people.  So, for example, in any Jewish writing we must distinguish between the meaning the author intended (the peshat) and the meaning(s) given the text by later tradition (the derash).  Orthodox schools recognize that distinction, but they claim that if you want to know the correct meaning of the biblical text, the divinely intended meaning, you should consyult the classical Jewish commentators (e.g. Rashi).  the orthodox would use that method because they believe that God revealed both the written text of the Torah and the interpretations he intended at Sinai and that those interpretations were passed down from generation to generation until they were ultimately written down in the Midrash and medieval Jewish commentaries.  Consequently, while the words of the text may seem to mean something different from the traditional interpretation of them, that is of no consequence ....  In contrast, the Conservative movement and others who use the generally accepted moethods of literary analysis would claim that we must understand the text as it is.  The derash may alert us to unusual features of the text which must be investigated, but it is a later, and therefore quite possibly different meaning from that contained in the original text.  In fact, an important way of learning about Jewish history is to distinguish the laws and ideas that appear in the bible from those that devbeloped later - even if later authorities justifies their philosophies and legal decisions by reinterpreting earlier sources in the Bible and Talmud.  To discover the original meaning of a selection from the Bible or Talmud, we must learn the languages, ideas, and practices of the surrounding nations, because we must assume that our ancestors, like all other people, were influenced in how they thought and spoke by all the people living around them.
Dorff goes on, but I hope you see the point: many Conservative Jews believe that (like what Tomer says about Reform Jews) the ideas and practices of Jews of the Bible and Talmud were influenced by those of people around them (and Dorff does not just mean in negative ways e.g. we do not tatoo ouurselves because goyim do).  Moreover, many Conservative Jews do not believe that Orthodox understandings of the Bible and the Talmud are accurate understandings of the intended meanings.  Indeed, many Conservative Jews believe Orthodox Jews are reinterpreting (this is the very word Dorff uses) the Bible and Talmud.  Shykee, I am not saying that this is the truth, and I am certainly not saying this is what Orthodox jews believe.  But Wikipedia is not about the truth, it is about different points of view, and this is one polint of view.
Dorff is not the only important Conservative Jewish leade who holds this view.  The following is from Herbert Parzen, Architects of Conservative Judaism page 148:
:The Orthodox are necessarily loyal to rabbinic tradition and obediently submit to the Law as it has found expression in the Shulhan Aruckh, the official legal codex .... Conservative Judaism likewise reveres the Tradition and acknowledges the authority of the Halakhah, without ascribing to it the divine sanction in the literal sense.  Its teachers reserve the right to test the decisions of R. Joseph Caro, the codifier of the Shulhan Arukh, in order to determine whether his judgements conform with the opinions of earlier halakhic authorities, especially with those in Tahhaitic, Amoraic or Geonic sources.  This rivght is asserted in order the search the whole rabbinic literature for legal precedents which may help to find additional sanctions for the application of the Law to present circumstances.  The major elements in Conservatism agree on this point .... This point of view is the outgrowth of the historico-critical school of which Fr. Ginzberg was an effective explonent.  According to him, the Gaon R. Elijah of Vilna was its founding father.  Consequently, this viewpoint has irreproachable sponsorship and authoritative sanction.  Since it is axiomatic that practical policy must be based on theoretical studies, it becomes entirely proper and purposeful to ground the pragmatic Halakhah upon the teachings and research of the historical school.
In other words, Conservative Jews believe that both Conservative and orthodox Jews believe themselves to be adhering to "traditional Judaism."  According to Conservative Jews, Orthodox jews believe that they are adhering to traditional Judaism because they believe that God revealed both the Oral and Written law at Sinai; that there are no contradictions between the two, and that the Shulkhan Arukh itself is traditional and the ultimate expression of a continuous trtadition from Sinai through the Bible and Talmud up to the Shulhan Arukh and Orthodoxy today.  But Conservative Jews reject this view as false.  They do not believe that God revealed the Oral Law at Sinai (many - perhaps most, but definitely not all - do not believe God revealed the Written law and Sinai).  They do not believe that the Shulhan Arukh is an authoritative statement of "traditional Judaism."  indeed, they believe that to adhere to it is to reject the Judaism of the Tanaim - as Parzen writes, it is only through the Historical School, which Parzen like Dorff identifies with Conservative Judaism and which both see as not being shared by Orthodoxy, that one achieves an accurate understanding of the Tannaitic, Amoraitic, and Geonic sources which often differ from the Shulhan Aruch.  The views of Dorff and Parzen were well-summarized by Robert Gordis, one of the leading Conservative ideologues, in Understanding Conservative Judaism:
:Conservative Judaism does not claim to be the hair of Orthodox Judaism, but of traditional Judaism ... the two are not synonymous ... The difference between traditional Judaism and Orthodoxy is crucial and should be clearly understood.  Traditional judaism is the product of the entire religious experience of the Jewish people from the days of Abraham and our own, including its mainstream, its secondary currents, and its cross-currents, all of which affected its progress and geowth.  Orthodoxy has adopted one stage in the history of Judaism, that of Eastern Europe about the year 1700, stereotyped it, and adopted it as the permanent and "authentic" pattern for Judaism for all time.  To be sure, the recall is neither complete nor accurate ... 
There is a lot more, of course.  Now, I got involved when Shykee wrote that it is not right to imply that "the religious beliefs and practices of Orthodoxy are different than in Judaism of the past" and that "I find it highly unlikely indeed there is a source saying that basic Orthodox Judaism in it's practices differs from the actual practices of rabbinic Jewry until the 1800s."  As to the first quote - if Shykee will be much more specific and say that it is not right to imply that the religious beliefs and practices of Orthodoxy are not different from those of the Judaism of the Shulchan Aruch, I will accept that without any question.  But if when Shykee says "Judaism of the past" he means to include the times of the Tannaim, Amoraim, and Geonim, then I say: that is your point of view, but it is not held by everyone.  And in response to his second quote, that he finds it hard to believe that there is a source saying that basic Orthodox Judaism differens in its practices from Rabbinic Judaism, well, Dorff, Parzen and Gordis are saying just that.  This may not be a view that you like, and I agree that it is not the only view.  But it is an important view that must, to comply with our policies, be included in the article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orthodoxy is a new movement: A Conservative Jewish POV 

message: A better version was reverted with no explanation of why the content was unacceptable. The reverter claimed "too many changes at once" but there is no policy or guideline in Wikipedia against any number of changes. In fact, articles are routinely rewritten at Wikipedia. Articles are tagged for cleanup, inviting massive rewrites. The exercise of reverting against the guideline of "Be Bold in Editing" discourages contributive editing. Beautiful Eyes 02:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look above, you'll see there's a very lively discussion underway.  I encourage you to participate.  Calling a revert "anti-collaborative", btw, sounds anti-collaborative, esp. when you consider that you came here to tell us about it and in the process pointed out that you're not collaborating, but rather, are protesting against the ongoing collaboration.  Tomertalk 02:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-collaborative reverts