Talk:Jewish principles of faith

message: For such complete article the omission of the above is curious.
:Curious in what way? Why do you think that topic would be relevant to this article? Jayjg (talk) 01:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  View of non-Jews and permitted relationships with them. 

message: JFW, I don't see why what I wrote should be seen as "unbalanced".  From what I understand, it has been a mainstream view in Judaism that one should not take the creation account of Gensesis literally.  For the last 150 years a great many Orthodox rabbis have stressed that the Bible does not explicitly claim that the world was created six thousands years ago.  That was an assumption based on the dating in Seder Olam, a non-canonical midrash that has no formal status in either Jewish law or Jewish theology.  In fact, some Kabbalists teach that Jews whp accept Kabbalistic texts as geunine and accurate - which includes a great many Orthodox Jews - should understand that our universe is billions of years old.  See the works of Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan. Since the development of modern geology which has proved that our world is some 4.5 billion years old, the great majority of religious Jews (both Orthodox and non-Orthodox) have taught that one must find a way to re-read the Bible in accord with this finding. Why should this not be noted within the main article? RK 17:24, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
It is an interesting point you make since the opinion of Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan is an outlier in terms of Orthodox Jews. The essay you refer to was given to Orthodox Jewish Scientists who couldn't reject what science found as evidence to the world being billions of years old.
As far as I am aware, Orthodox Jews across the board accept the narrative of Genesis literally, especially in terms of the timeline of the creation of man. Other explanations exist that try to harmonize the narrative of Genesis and science; one example used is that the 24 hour day was only created on Day 4 as evident in the narrative.204.128.182.35 (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: In Gen 1:1, G-d creates ex nihilo (matter from nothing). Then, before verse 2, these other worlds (in this opinion, epochs) rose and fell. Then, there was "chaos and emptiness" from which our world emerged. The universe as a whole, even the planet, can therefor be older than 5758 years. Since current theory is that the world started as a singularity -- in other words, not within the purvey of science, it is all a matter of faith if the ex nihilo was with the intent of the Creator or not. Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan quotes R' Yitzchak of Akko (a student of the Ramban, late medieval) who concludes from the Zohar that the first creation was 15.8 billion years ago -- the age astronomers and physicists seem to be converging on, given multiple ways of measuring the age. The Netziv (R' Naftali Zvi Yehudah Berlin), in his commentary on chumash, argues against the idea that these earlier worlds left physical evidence. It doesn't fit the precise translation of the quote, that G-d "created worlds umachrivam -- and destroyed them". Instead, the Netziv points to a medrash in which it is explained that the fall of morality in humanity in the days before the flood reflected itself in nature. Even animals interbread, leading to the monstrosities that archeologists find.
===Rabbinic statements that are compatible with evolution===
*Talmud Chagiga 13b states that there were 974 generations of humans before God created Adam.
*Many midrashim state that the "first week" of Creation lasted for extremely long periods of time.  See Anafim on Rabbenu Bachya's Sefer Ikkarim 2:18; Midrash Bereshit Rabba 9.  (I haven't read the Anafim on this discursus myself - RK)
* Midrash Bereshit Rabba 14 states that humans were created with tails!
* Midrash Tanchuma Genesis 6 states that people born before the time of Noah had webbed fingers!
* Breshit Rabba 23 states that in the days of Enosh the faces of men became ape like.
So given the above statements in classical rabbinic literature and the Kabbalistic literature, it is hard to say that the classical Jewish view demanded that people accept that the world was created as is some 6,000 years ago.  I think the text should stress that the literal understanding of creation in six days was one of a number of religious Jewish understandings, but was not the only one.  RK 20:33, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
Yet, Rav Kananetsky has ruled that if a ger tzedek believed the world was millions of years old his conversion is pussel even b'di eved. One wonders how you know the above, but a gadol hador does not. The only explenation I can think of is he knows more that enlightens the above in such a way that it does not mean what you think it does. Basejumper2 18:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Creation of the universe

message: *Talmud Chagiga 13b states that there were 974 generations of humans before God created Adam.
*Many midrashim state that the "first week" of Creation lasted for extremely long periods of time.  See Anafim on Rabbenu Bachya's Sefer Ikkarim 2:18; Midrash Bereshit Rabba 9.  (I haven't read the Anafim on this discursus myself - RK)
* Midrash Bereshit Rabba 14 states that humans were created with tails!
* Midrash Tanchuma Genesis 6 states that people born before the time of Noah had webbed fingers!
* Breshit Rabba 23 states that in the days of Enosh the faces of men became ape like.
So given the above statements in classical rabbinic literature and the Kabbalistic literature, it is hard to say that the classical Jewish view demanded that people accept that the world was created as is some 6,000 years ago.  I think the text should stress that the literal understanding of creation in six days was one of a number of religious Jewish understandings, but was not the only one.  RK 20:33, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
Yet, Rav Kananetsky has ruled that if a ger tzedek believed the world was millions of years old his conversion is pussel even b'di eved. One wonders how you know the above, but a gadol hador does not. The only explenation I can think of is he knows more that enlightens the above in such a way that it does not mean what you think it does. Basejumper2 18:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rabbinic statements that are compatible with evolution

message: Why is the  template included in this article?  It's a nice template, don't get me wrong, but I don't see what relevance it has to the Rambam's (or anyone else') interpretations of the fundamental beliefs of Judaism...  Tomertalk 09:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right.  I've removed it. Jayjg (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holidays? 

message: The main Judaism article had a very jumbled list of Maimonides' 13 Principles (henceforth referred to as 13Ps). I replaced it with the simpler, more accurate list I found on this page. However, while I believe that is sufficient for the Judaism article, the 13Ps are important enough to deserve more thorough treatement in this (or their own) article. I'm pasting below the old list that I removed from the Judaism article, as it has some useful stuff in it, despite being wrong in places. Let's try to get it up to standard and put it into this article. Nomist 16:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See https://www.sefaria.org/sheets/545251?lang=bi for a version that conforms more with Maimonides's version as written in his Commentary of the Mishna. 204.128.182.35 (talk) 17:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

text: I am assuming when you wrote "Your principles are a bit mixed up, and you're missing some and you add some others" you were referring to Nomist 16:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The version you state is the commonly accepted abbreviation. However, is does NOT conform entirely with the Rambam which is why I cited the link to Sefaria. Have you ever seen the source itself (Commentary on the Mishna, Sanhedrin Chapter 10)? 200.12.168.33 (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thirteen Principles 

message: *To quote Maimonides, "There is no difference between [the Biblical statement] "his wife was Mehithabel" (Genesis 10,6) on the one hand (i.e. an "unimportant" verse), and "Hear, O Israel" on the other (i.e. an "important" verse)...anyone who denies even such verses thereby denies God and shows contempt for his teachings more than any other skeptic, because he holds that the Torah can be divided into essential and non-essential parts...". 
*To quote Sefer Haikarim (R' J. Albo), "He who transgresses a law because he questions wether the law was commanded by God or communicated orally by God to Moses is excluded from the ranks of the believers...there are as many articles of faith [in Judaism] as there are commandments in the Torah." (Ch.14,Book 1). 
It would be great to hear a response, but it seems that the lack of context in the article results in a profoundly skewered presentation of the "Rishonim's" ideas and beliefs. The article can easily be understood to imply that the Rishonim viewed Judaism as some sort of ephemeral, intangible belief system with only a few basic concepts and "principles" necessary in order to be a Jew in good standing. Some basic ideas are neglected: the controversy surrounding the enumeration of any principles at all; the idea, very clear in their writings, that these basic tenets are only underpinnings necessary for a full acceptance of the complete Written and Oral Torah. Because these criticisms would demand a very large overhaul of the article, it seems only fair to first set them forth in the "talk" area for discussion before editing.  Shykee 05:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, the article incorrectly describes Mendelsohn's views. Of course he believed that Judaism had inherent beliefs. His innovation was saying that those aspects of Judaism that dealt with belief could be utilized as universal truths applicable to all mankind. The rest was considered exclusively jewish "law". Shykee 06:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have slowly begun the re-write. Any suggestions or criticisms would be appreciated. Shykee 20:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article lacking crucial context, re-write in progress

message: The article Yetzer Hara should perhaps be expanded, or merged with Jewish principles of faith -- 201.50.123.251 01:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Yetzer Hara]] article

message: The first of the following two sentences 
"Some later rabbis have attempted to reconcile the differences, saying that Maimonides' principles are covered by Albo's much shorter list. While some later rabbis have attempted to reconcile the differences, claiming that Maimonides' principles are covered by Albo's much shorter list, the difference, and alternate lists provided by other medieval rabbinic authorities seem to indicate a some level of tolerance for varying theological perspectives."
Is unnecessary.  I will hereby delete it for the sake of clarity and rectitude.  Fine work over here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.180.201 (talk • contribs) 
: This is an old comment, but I decided to follow through and rework the intro. Please review. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:35, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introductory paragraph

message: I have read this and i have read Islam there is so much in common, so why is there so much hate? Why do Jews prefer Christians to Muslims when Muslims and Jews have a better history? Is Israel the source of this division? I mean the whole one god thing, the purification, the praying, Christianity is so different and yet why does this article not say "like Islam" but it compares to Chritianity? Oh yeah and the whole laws of leviticus, no pork , no usary, --HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 22:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While others may share your observations and emotions, let's restrict the talk pages for their direct purpose: improving WP articles. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ну? 23:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I am so confused

message: "Although Orthodox and traditional Jews continue to stress the divine origin of Torah, most rabbinical authorities have agreed that there is no halakhic obligation to adhere to any particular statement of principles of faith, other than a belief in the oneness of God."
Since halacha and halachic have not been defined for the reader, perhaps the sentence should read "most rabbinical authorities have agreed that there is no obligation under Jewish law to adhere..."  Alternatively, you may want to link the word halacha to an appropriate wikipedia page or definition. Eyshetchayil 04:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragraph 4 -- Halacha

message: Before I begin, in the interest of fairness I must profess an ignorance of non-Orthodox Judaism. The comments below are based on a lifetime of study - in Yeshiva and afterwards - of Orthodox Judaism, mostly Misnagdish, some Chasidish. Someone else will have to clarify where the points I am making are valid only for Orthodox but not for non Orthodox.
Big huge point number one: End of 2nd paragraph: "Judaism stresses performance of deeds or commandments rather than adherence to a belief system." This is totally false. As mentioned in many places throughout Jewish law (and touched upon in the article) observance of the commandments without belief in their source or observance of all the commendments except one is considered observance of nothing at all. For example there is a statement in the Mishnah (I forget where, but near the end of order Nezikin)that "Epicurus" (often called an opikores, but actually the name of a person) has no place in the world to come. The Artscroll compilation of the Mishnah has a note on bottom that Epicurus was a contemporary of aristotle who believed in the Jewish principles from a humanistic rather than divine standpoint.
Big point number two: The article leaves out some important information about the Maimonides 13 principles of faith and others like it. At the time they were first written other rabbis took great exception (in various responsa) to certain priniciples being labeled as more fundamental than others, since it is all equally divine. Other Rabbis responded that the concentration on these particular principles of faith were based on a logical argument: given a few principles taken as axiomatic the rest follow by reason. The principles stated by Maimonides and others are therefore the ones each think must be taken as axiomitic in order to derive the others. However: All agree that all the principles of the bible are divine and neccessary. As mentioned in the article there is an educational advantage in selecting a few principles to concentrate on and it is for this reason that the Principles of Faith were written.
Next point, not sure how to handle it: the name Moses Mendelsohn in Orthodox Judaism is fairly synonymous with the term heretic. Therefore in siting principles of faith as different between the branches of Judaism this must be clarified.
Next point, while no principles of faith of the size and shape of Maimonides' 13 have been cannonized, this is specifically because much larger works, such as the Talmud in specific more than any other, is cannonized as the tome of not just law but faith as well. The Talmud is the cannonized tome of priniciples of Jewish faith. No shorter work can be described as definitive because belief is an all or none proposition. In summary of this point the statement that principles of faith are not cannonized is false. The Talmud is that cannon. --Moisheweiss (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested corrections/additions 

message: Has anyone noticed that the first four out of six sentences are all written in the negative? And that the lead reads like a discussion, not an encyclopedia entry? Yoninah (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Really negative

message: According to our article:
:Maimonides' 13 principles were controversial when first proposed, evoking criticism by Crescas and Joseph Albo. They evoked criticism as minimizing acceptance of the entire Torah (Rabbi S. of Montpelier, Yad Rama, Y. Alfacher, Rosh Amanah). The 13 principles were ignored by much of the Jewish community for the next few centuries. 
I actully heard that Rambam was excommunicated by suome rabbis at the tim, though I do not know the details.  Can someone (or people) fill this in?  I am not trying to get down on Rambam, but the fact that dafka he was criticized reveals a lot about the egree of dissent that Judaism can bear.  I think it is a very instructive moment in Jewish history.  The debate - what, specifically, were Crescas and Albo's reasons, how did Rambam or orhters respond ... would go much farther than illustrating something the article already says (at times it has been hard or controversial to establish uniformity of blief), it will actually reveal the true if heterogeneous nature of Jewish faith, by detailing the diferent things Jewish sages considered worth arguing over, and taking the time to explain what these rabbis believed, and why they disagreed so. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rambam 

message: In section 1.3, Reward and Punishment, it is stated:  "Judaism has always considered "Tikkun Olam" (or Perfecting the world) as a fundamental reason for God's creating the world. Therefore, the concept of "life after death," in the Jewish view, is not encouraged as the sole motivating factor in performance of Judaism. Indeed it is held that one can attain closeness to God even in this world through moral and spiritual perfection."
I am under the impression that Tikkun Olam is a Kabbalistic formation, and was elucidated in the middle ages.  This section is unsourced.  Is there any documentation for the assertion that "Judaism has always considered "Tikkun Olam" as a fundamental reason for God's creating the world."?  Mweisenfeld (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tikkun Olam 

message: In the French version of the 13 principles, there is a subtext to each of them that further explains their meaning. I find them quite helpful but unfortunately no references are given. My French is adequate but not great. Does anyone know of an English version of these? If so, it might not be a bad idea to add them to this article. Mike Hayes (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like this idea. It enriches the topic. Mike, maybe you could find them in French at least. OD-CA76.172.73.97 (talk) 06:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Maimonides' 13 principles of faith

message: Having grown up under the distinct impression that it is presumptuous for me to assert the existence of an Afterlife, I was surprised to read the following in this article:
"..However most Jews today believe in a Heaven as opposed to an Underworld. ..".
Understandably, opinions have evolved over time amongst American Jewry on a variety of topics.  Unfortunately, the lack of an in-line citation makes it difficult for anyone to verify this purported statement of fact.  At minimum, such a citation must disclose polling results, and that these results must be representative. Vonkje (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Afterlife

message: There are two MAJOR related issues with this article which I think is beyond me to fix. The first issue is the absence of the Mizrahi / Sephardi viewpoint (at least after the Rambam), and the second issue (quite related) is the strong emphasis on the North American division of Ashkenazi Judaism into 'sects' (Reform, Conservative, Orthodox'. The article gives the impression that these divisions span the entire Jewish world, which happens to be what most North American Ashkenazim think, however we need someone or a few people who are familiar with the Mizrahi & Sephardic viewpoints, as well as the viewpoints of Jews in Israel and elsewhere in the East.
It so happens that most English-speaking Jews live in North America and are Ashkenazi, so it makes sense that the English wikipedia article reflects that viewpoint, and yet this paints an unbalanced view of the reality in which a large part of Judaism is being unrepresented. And I am aware that there are some significant differences here.
Thoughts?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.29.23.57 (talk) 21:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  A very strong North American bias 

message: The lead on this article is not beyond salvation but it needs a serious review and something has to go. A tip would be to avoid using parenthesis for so-called clarity. It offers nothing but makes the thing hard to read. Its the lead, be general, sum up the article without trying to accommodate every single last known position to mankind. --Inayity (talk) 22:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: look at this  transcendent, non-compound God, who created the universe, and continues to be concerned with its governance. What is the definition of Transcendent so ... G-d is transcendent and Immanence I may have missed something. Either way this article is about principles of faith not the nature or properties of G-d in Judaism. --Inayity (talk) 22:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  This lead is a mess 

message: I do not see any statement in this article of the bedrock principle of Judaism that God has no body, is incorporeal, never had a body, never will have a body, cannot have a body or any physical dimension or representation. It's as if it has been deliberately left out so that someone might think the idea of God becoming incarnate and descending to earth is a possibility not excluded by Judaism. Yet Judaism is completely against this notion. It is the third of Maimonides 13 principles: "Principle 3 -- I believe by complete faith that the Creator, blessed be His name, is not a body, is not affected by physical matter, and nothing whatsoever can compare to Him [or be compared with Him]." If it's mentioned in the Article and I missed it, perhaps someone can point it out. If it was left out for a reason, perhaps someone can state the reason. It should be added.Manhattantwelve (talk) 04:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  God is incorporeal -- has no body or form  

message: Jewish principle 103.149.101.75 (talk) 06:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction to world religions and belief system 

message: I do not understand the basis to reevaluate the existence of God after the Holocaust. Nowhere does God promise constant and total protection.
In fact, God states explicitly that when the Jews will not adhere to the Torah he will unleash terror. Unfortunately, the period prior to the Holocaust was a period of unprecedented abandoning of tradition. That would make the Holocaust as a delivery of God's promise. 204.128.182.34 (talk) 03:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holocaust Theology