Talk:Anusim

message: If you want to rewrite the article to reflect opposing opinions, please do the research and back up those opposing opinions. My contributions reflect strictly what Jewish Law says on the subject as expressed by the biggest rabbinic authorities (over 200 to boot), from the Talmud itself down to the 20th century, many of whom I cite and quote in my two extensive articles which are listed below this Wikipedia entry. 
Whatever "reality" you may want to ascribe today unfortunately is due to ignorance on the subject by today's halakhic opinion makers, who primarily ignore the historic Sephardic responsa on the matter. I know this because I myself have confronted rabbis who advocate the so called "giur leHumrá" (a halakhic fiction itself with no basis on Jewish Law), and who cannot defend their position after I have exposed the facts. 
Your edit has been deleted Me, Myself, and I are Here.
Dramirezg (talk) 01:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Me, Myself, and I are Here; your POV is very POV 

message: Sorry I had to erase most of it, as it is stated by the Rambam (Rabbi Moses Maimondes) himself that the child of a Jewish rebel is called an 'anús'. He does not use, nor the rabbis after him, the term 'Bene Anusim'. When rabbis need to differentiate between the children born from a Jewish father, versus a Jewish mother -- rebel, coerced or not --, the term would be Zerá Israel, which literally is a person who is not Jewish according to halakháh.
The term 'anús' or 'bene anús' can only be applied if the mother is an anusá, i.e. Jewish. Hence the child is Jewish too.--Dramirezg (talk) 06:21, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  To whomever wrote the "Bene Anusim" section 

message: The use of such words as "unfortunately" smacks of POV in my opinion.  Moreover, the whole article is very poorly written.  I have neither the time, nor the expertise, to rewrite the article better.  Someone knowledgeable should undertake this. David Cannon 23:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV disputed 

message: While the article makes it clear that anusim are considered Jews by (most) other Jews because their conversion was forced, it does not make clear what their present status is.  Are the modern-day descendants of Spanish Anusim practising Jews, or Catholics?
I saw in another article a claim that the anusim of Catalonia still use Hebrew loanwards in casual speech.  I would think it pretty hard to believe that they are Catholics if this is the case. --Saforrest 17:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Dramirezg for your response.  Two points:
* First, of course I understand that word usage does not in itself determine nationality or religion. My question was a purely factual one, about what religion is actually practised by the people called Anusim in Spain. This is not a question of Jewish law, but of a present-day fact. Do these people go to a church, or a synagogue? If their Spanish ancestors resumed the practice of Judaism some time after their forced conversion, when did this happen, and under what circumstances? If they never resumed the practice of Judaism, then do they still retain Jewish traditions, such as the use of Hebrew loanwords, even though their families have been practising Catholics for five hundred years? Regards, --Saforrest 05:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, a meshumad is also legally a Jew.  The difference is that a voluntary apostate cannot claim the benefit of his Jewish status, though he is still subject to its burdens: his status exists but is in abeyance.  An anús has full Jewish status for all purposes.--Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) 14:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to make a clarification on the Jewish status of Sabbath-desecrators. Most comments seem to be right on target on the fact that such individuals retain their Jewish birth-right but lose certain communal privileges (such as serving as witnesses and being counted in a minyan). However, according to Maimonides, a person is considered a public Sabbath-desecrator ONLY if he PUBLICALLY does something that is known to the masses to be violation of the Sabbath's rest (see Hilkhot `Edut/Laws of Witnesses, Ch. 12). Today we have a situation where most observant Jews rely on fake `eruvin to carry in the public domain on the Sabbath, which is forbidden from the Tora, but since most are unaware of the prohibition, they would not lose their communal privileges becauce of this (despite the fact that they are indeed transgressing). On the other hand, those who drive a car on the Sabbath would lose their communal privileges, for this is widely-known form of desecration. --Nathan613  01:07, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear 

message: The article is reading like a tear-jerking "take-me-home-with-you" PR piece and had a few violations of WP:NOR and I have tried to make it a bit more in line with WP:NPOV. These two paragraphs were taken out, feel free to discuss it here:
*"For example, Sigmund Freud – who was an avowed atheist – is considered a min under Jewish Law; Albert Einstein – who although believed in a pantheistic God but did not observe Jewish Law – is considered a meshumad; and Rabbi Salomon ibn Verga http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=55&letter=I, who was converted to Catholicism by force in 1497 yet remained observant of Judaism, was an anús."
and
*"This means that despite the forced conversion, the meat slaughtered by the Anusim, the wine made by Anusim, the marriages performed by Anusim, etc., are considered kasher, in this sense valid for the use of a Jew and the Jewish community."
These are very obvious controversial paragraphs that were being presented as "facts" when they are merely conjecture at best and OR at worst violations of WP:NOR. How on Earth can anyone cite or know the Halachic status of Freud or Einstein? They may be only or no better than "tinokus shenishbu"  ([as if they were Jewish] "infants captured by gentiles" [and raised as gentiles]" and hence free and guiltless from any Jewish observances. And who says that the shechita and wine of an anus is "kosher" and who would accept their marriages? (To Jews or to gentiles?, it's not clear) if for two or three of four hundred years such people lived and abided by Catholicism? Thanks, IZAK (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely we don't need to make judgements on the status of any individual at all: I would rather omit discussions of Freud and Einstein from the article.  On anusim, I think Isak was distinguishing between first-generation forced converts, where everyone agrees they are kasher Jews and need no reconversion, and n-th generation Latino groups, like the Iquito Jews, with some vague tradition of marrano descent, where we cannot be sure they are halachic Jews by descent anyway (they tend to trace descent by the paternal line). --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slant 

message: the date (18c) given for Ibn Danan in the article is wrong.
the accents on the names are Spanish, not English.
in the Wikipeia entry Saadia_Ibn_Danan, his name is given as
Rabbi Saadiah ben Maimon ben Moshe ibn Danan (Hebrew: סעדיה אבן דנאן‎)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.213.178 (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  dates 

message: the section "Meaning and history of term" begins with "Jewish Law categorizes the status of a Jew according to his commitment to rabbinic tradition. The two most commonplace ones are: Min (apostate), for a Jew who basically denies the existence of God; and meshumad (heretic), for a Jew who does not adhere to the observance of Jewish Law." the most commonplace statuses of jews are observant and non-observant. apostates and heretics are not commonplace. this section should be re-written to either include most jews or re-written to state: "Two uncommon statuses of jews are:"  --diremarc (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am the author of the article, and the definition I put forward is in accordance to Jewish Law, not according to common parlance today. Being that this is an article that deals with a Jewish legal issue, the contradistinctions are necessary. --Dramirezg (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  section "Meaning and history of term" too exclusive-statuses of jews includes observant and non-observant