Talk:Baal teshuva

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Most of the article is not about the Baal Tshuvas

But more about Kiruv talking about those people who are responsible for the Baaly Thsuvas. and now that they have their own article see Orthodox Jewish Outreach it gets re-routed there.--יודל 14:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Done--יודל 21:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Should some of this article be split into Orthodox Jewish outreach?

There have been some major edits to this and other articles resulting in AfD's, splits, merges, and other confusions. Please discuss whether or not information here should be split into the aforementioned article, and, if so, what should ho where. Once a reasonable consensus has been reached, we can have a stable adjustement, if necessary. Thank you. -- Avi 14:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

There has been no discussion of any text in regards to this article the whole issue is on the Outreach Movement not on the Baally Tshuvahs themselves which this article is restricted to.--יודל 14:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yidisheryid: They are not called "Bally" Tshuvahs (see Bally (disambiguation) to understand this), and if you can't write about this subject's content in a decent and respectful manner, it shows that either you do not care for it or that you know little about what it is or that perhaps you may wish to do it harm as you cause much disruption in all articles that you get involved with, see the case against you at the present time at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#In which there is a dispute between User:Yidisheryid and User:Avraham. IZAK 08:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

About the subject: there are 2 articles one is for the Baal teshuvah and one is for Orthodox Jewish outreach all discussions about Jewish Outreach institutions and rabbis must be moved into Orthodox Jewish outreach away from this article. because here the article is talking about the Baal tshuvas and should let all the thinks that make them into Baal teshuvas to its own article, like there is a separate article for rabbi and student, it can surely be 2 articles for the outreach and the Baal teshuvah.--יודל 15:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

done--יודל 21:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Baal teshuva movement

Proposal (in response to User:Avi's question above):

There could be two articles, but why do we need two articles? For example, there is an article about Haredi Judaism but what would be the purpose of an article about Haredi outreach or Haredi rabbis? -- since Haredi Judaism includes all its components and you can't have an article about Haredi Judaism without its missions or its rabbis, they all go together. Similarly, while there is an article about the Roman Catholic Church, there is only a List of popes and not an article about Roman Catholic Church outreach or of Popes as such, since there is no such thing as Catholicism without its core functions and its Popes.

What would make the most sense is that the Baal teshuva article be renamed as the Baal teshuva movement because it goes beyond what Orthodox outreach rabbis do or do not do since many secular or traditional Jews start moving to a more Orthodox position way before they connect officially with an Orthodox rabbi or community at large, and at the same a Baal teshuva movement article could legitimately be a sub-set of Orthodox Judaism or Judaism in general, and for which enough citations exist, because that is what the movement has become known as. (It's also referred to as the "Baal teshuva revolution" at times, but that makes it sound like the "Bolshevik Revolution" or such like and will cause misunderstanding as a lead title.) Thus using Baal teshuva movement (just as there is an article about the Jewish Renewal movement) would allow the inclusion of wrting about the complex motives and reasons of the people who join it, the rabbis and personalities that have guided it and still make it happen (no movement can exist without leadership on some level), and both historiacl and present events and issues relating to it in one article. Then Orthodox Jewish outreach should be merged into and redirected to Baal teshuva movement because (as explained) "Orthodox Jewish outreach" does not exist or function in a vacuum. IZAK 08:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Agree:

• IZAK 08:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagree:

• "Baal teshuva movement" rings to me as pov. It is true that most of the Baal teshuva article belongs under Orthodox Jewish outreach. Then why not simply move it there? The remainder of the Baal teshuva article should be renamed chazara bit'shuva, or a more commonly used English equivalent, if it exists.* Chazara bit'shuva should focus on the psychological and behavioral aspects of becoming a religious Jew, which have been widely studied and are neglected in en.wiki. It is the reverse transformation of yetzia bish'eila, which also has an article. gidonb 01:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC) *(Merger or moving the other way, then renaming are also fine. I am focusing on the content organization, not on the technical aspects). This is an alternative proposal. Feel free to move it to a more appropriate place!
  • Gidon: (1) I fail to see any "POV" in what I have stated. What you propose is like like saying that one needs to have an article about Jewish atheists to counterbalance an article about belief in The God of Judaism and that is more of a false construct of logic than my alleged failure to adhere to Wikipedia's POV rules by saying we Keep a long established name for an article, and then Expand it. Wikipedia is not about point vs. counterpoint like a ping-pong game. (2) I think there are some nuances that you are confusing here due to the different ways this topic is handled in English speaking America vs, Hebrew speaking Israel. The usage of the term "Baal teshuva movement" has gained widesperead usage in almost all English language print and Internet mediums as Google shows, and in addition the even stronger term "Baal teshuva revolution" has also crept in, and I am not suggesting that as a title, as that may be too radical for now. (3) Your suggestion that the Baal teshuva article be renamed by the hardly-known Hebrew name "chazara bit'shuva" (in the English speaking world) is indeed POV revealing an Israeli cultural tilt to this subject because that is not how the topic is handled, named or discussed in the English language, including the most Orthodox venues where it's frequently discussed. (4) Another crucial difference between the Israeli and the American Baal teshuva movement is that in the United States most Baal teshuvas have parents or grandparents who were involved with Reform Judaism and/or Conservative Judaism movements, something that does not exist in Israel or Europe, which left its mark and influenced them, and realizing, often in retrospect, that they began to move in the direction of Orthodoxy, and that by that time many who would eventually become Baal teshuvas would have had and still had already spent good portions of their time and indeed may still have spouses and family members who benefit from their time and/or connections with the Reform and Conservative synagogues and families, something that does not happen in Israel and that obviously has nothing to do with formal organized "Orthodox Jewish outreach" at all. As often happens it is the secular, Reform and Conservative Jews who seek out the Orthodox ones at work or in colleges with their questions and piqued interests rather than the other way around. (5) As I stated above the Baal teshuva movement is not just about "Orthodox outreach" it is a far wider phenomenon that has been noted, researched and written about by sociologists, historians and Jewish thinkers since the 1960s when it came into the fore. The Baal teshuva movement, in its origins, was as much inspired by the Sixties and seventies counterculture, especially the Counterculture of the 1960s, the Hippie movement (as per Reb Shlomo Carlebach), the Woodstock Festival, the Drug subculture, the new interest in Eastern religions (as per Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan) and the spirit of youth rebellion that still pervades US high schools and college campuses to the present time. It was in recognition of this phenomenon and in response to it that the earliest emissaries of the Lubavitcher Rebbe went out to connect with these people. (6) One should not make the great error of logic and of history, as the name "Orthodox Jewish outreach" alone would imply, that it was somehow or other the "Orthodox establishment" that "created" or encouraged or even now creates the Baal teshuva movement. On the contrary, there is tremendous prejudice AGAINST Baal teshuvas in the mainstream Orthodox and Haredi communities, proven by the fact that they will generally not accept Baal teshuvas as spouses for their children, the Haredi and Hasidic leadership does not allow any Baal teshuvas positions of meaningful leadership and influence (beyond singing the "party line" of this or that group or organization) regardless of how many years the Baal teshuvas spend in yeshivas or turning their lives around as latter-day Rabbi Akivas and they are often viewed with scorn in Orthodox synagogues as a kind of second-class sub-group of "Untouchables" ("near-yet-so-far") forcing them to create their own "unique" ("separate but equal") places of worship, in spite of all the hype and hoopla in Orthodox circles about "Kiruv" ("[bringing Jews] close"), amazingly all these serious roadblocks have not stopped anything as the movement continues to grow spontaneously among all sectors and classes of Jews worldwide -- because it is a grassroots movement with its own natural life endowed with spontaneous regeneration. In the early stages of the movement the Lubavitchers were as surprsied as anyone else that anyone, let alone college students, would have an interest in Hasidic or Haredi Judaism, and to boot, when Lubavitch finally got organized and got rolling, the Lithuanian rosh yeshivas mocked and scorned the Lubavicth outreach efforts as outlandish and not becoming of Orthodox Jews. So the "Orthodox perspective" is only one aspect of a far broader movement sweeping across the Jewish world. (7) Therefore, based on the facts at hand, the truth is that the Baal teshuva movement is a spontaneous grassroots movement that takes place in the Jewish people starting at the latter part of the twentieth century and gaining momentum till the present. Plenty of citations and references can be found and used merely by following all the leads for Baal teshuva movement on Google (8) Your point about yetzia bish'eila is valid but it is a different subject. It is not about secular Jews studying Judaism, becoming religious, and then perhaps adopting Orthodoxy which is what the Baal teshuva movement is about, whereas yetzia bish'eila is another phenomenon. I could and should perhaps be renamed Jews who leave Orthodox Judaism as the name of "yetzia bish'eila" has been used by the Israeli left as a gimmick to mimmick and mock "the real thing" (the conventional Orthodox, Haredi and Hasidic Judaism that they hate) and as a kind of "alter ego" that has no real life of its own but only in relation to what it is meant to critique. A type of "anti-Torah" (i.e yetzia bish'eila) for the Torah (i.e. Baal teshuva), which is a ridiculous thought if you focus on it. That something has no unique identity of its own, only what it opposes or imagines itself to oppose. As if anyone could take seriously a statement that would postulate "E does not equal MC2" a very poor and faulty comparison.(9) An important thing to note is that while the study of psychology may be helpful in some cases, the use of "psychological and behavioral aspects of becoming a religious Jew" as metrics cannot and will not ever fully describe and expalin this phenomenon, because the Baal teshuva movement, as a true Jewish national and international movement cuts across all cultures, continents, and communities. As proof of this, the Jews of the former USSR have little in common with American hippies, and Israelis have little in common with South African or Australian Jews yet in all those countries and their Jewish centers you will find vibrant Baal teshuva communities that keep on sprouting up at all levels, in all professions and walks of life and when least expected. (10) I hope you are beginning to realize the complexity of this subject and how it cannot be squeezed back into any kind of "Genie in a bottle" as that would minimize serious and NPOV understanding of one of the most fascinating movements of modern Jewish history. IZAK 10:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

To answer this long long talk above i cannot gather all the time but try i must so here u go:

1. Calling certain people a movement tells the readers that their minds work somehow in one motion which in fact we are dealing with too many people too many reasons and too many motives to look at them as a movement. The proposal to call it chazarah betshuvah isn't in any way to counter Chazara bish'ela its simply the better choice for a name of a certain phenomena, movement is more POV metaphor for a name then a dry name that does not invoke any borrowed notations of movement.
2. Right this should not be a title. For this reason that the results are indeed a small group of Jewish outreach professionals responsible to push on wikipedia this POV.
3. The name Chazarah bitshuva is exactly known as chazara bishaleh, we aren't going to say that because one POV name is more known it should replace its right name, lets face it those articles are written now for this reason to explain subjects unknown. and the proper name must be chosen, not the pushed POV by the kiruv workers and their p.r. paid professionals.
4. The difference in Israeli and American Baaly thshuvah are more then enumerated and has nothing to do with this discussion. especially since the article here was already created.
5. This is only one aspect of the broader phenomena.
6. This is false it is in no way a grass roots phenomena the organizations are grass roots but they have their own article already Orthodox Jewish outreach, the Baaly tshuvah aren't a grass roots phenomena they have millions upon millions of personal reasons and motivations to become like this only after their self kindled commitment to become religious they get connected to the outreach phenomena.
7. The hardships enumerated does not make them into a movement since those problems are your typical clash between orthodoxy and modernity, the Baaly tshuvah are modern thinking people and the Orthodox Jews are born into a ancient middle age or stone age life style and thought system, this is as much a factor in the Yetzia bish'eila as the Chazarah bitshuva phenomena.
8. the returnees have the same exact issues as the return backs. all grapple with challenge how to live in a new totally weird lifestyle for them.
9. True its not all physiological but it is the major and mainly part of it. the movement part is definitely the smaller factor here
10. There is no complexity at all here, this is a very clear cut deal, the word movement is very POV and no matter how many side discussions brought up it stays very simple Chazarah bish'eileh is the only right choice for 2 users against 1 we need more users to make this permanent but meanwhile it is wrong to create a new article with the clear POV word movement as its name--יודל 19:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• Disagree: anything in wikipedia must be before in some other place, nobody calls it Baal tshuvah movement, it is not a movement, every baal tshuva gets normalized after one generation, they do not consider themselves separate and unique. and 2 articles is very good one for Baal Teshuva and the second for Orthodox Jewish outreach are 2 different things, they are like a rabbi and a student, one is the rabbi who is Orthodox and one is the person who becomes orthodox.--יודל 14:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Yidisheryid: You miss the point/s I am making. I am not disagreeing with you in the very limited sense you speak of. But the question being discussed here is about looking at the totality of a movement and using its proper name otherwise why not merge the Baal teshuva article into the Repentance in Judaism according to you? So as you can see it's not just about the label of a singular "Baal teshuva" or many similar ones because in any case EVERY Jew is required to do teshuva all the time and be a contrite "Baal teshuva" which would not help understand the modern movement that is being discussed here and what has transpired to create it in historical, sociological and cultural terms which is fully appropriate and applies here, as well as other factors that contributed to it, and not just about rabbis or students who do this-or-that. Thus when there are literally tens of thousands of Jews since the mid-twentieth century who have arisen and moved in a certain direction, then, as happened in earlier times, the/ir movement gets a historical, sociological and cultural NAME because of its quantifiability, notability, and a growing academic literature and research about and into it, such as with the Pharisees and Sadducees of ancient times that are not just about what an individual "Pharisee" or "Sadducee" is or is not, but about entire movements in Jewish history. Similarly, in modern times there has been the Haskalah (the Jewish enlightenment movement) and the Bundists (the Jewish labor movement) and one would not limit them to articles about or based on the name of the individual singular word Maskil or Bundist. Or similarly articles about Religious Zionism and Hasidic Judaism refer to the Religious Zionist movement and to the Hasidic movement, and one would not expect lead articles about them to be called "Religious Zionist" or "Hasid"! Finally, your assertion that "nobody calls it Baal tshuvah movement" makes absolutely no sense if you simply check the many scholarly and reliable sources that a simple Google search of "Baal teshuva movement" reveals that the term "Baal teshuva movement" is very much used in the English-speaking world. IZAK 04:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
    • A Hasid or Hareidi is here to stay therefore its hasidim a Baal Tshuva wants his kids to be Hareidim or Orthodox Jews he nobody wants to perserve the Baal tshuva people as a movement why should we in wikipedia make it as such? if Google results give some mentions referring to this it is indeed not the main stream name and should not be named like this in the header, but only as a side point.--יודל 12:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Of course a Hasid or Haredi is here to stay, and no-one wants to label a Baal teshuva forever, but these are not the points in dispute. The term "Baal teshuva movement" describes what has happened in modern Jewish history and what is still happening, it describes a phenomenon and not a person as such. The Google search confirms that the term "Baal teshuva movement" is valid and has widespread currency in academic and literary books, publications and venues. IZAK 08:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
        • Fact is this isn't a movement at all, the definition of a movement does not apply here, because this is not dealing with one factor or collective body thats moving, this is just like any other group of people that act in no way connected one to an other, nor are their lives in any way or shape connected to one an other. This article is only about the main point of a certain phenomena in nature, it is some man, some humans, not a phenomena, although the phenomena can be and should be a large part in this subject, it should not overtake the header, because we are still talking here about a person rather then its phenomena or phenomenas who are responsible for those people. 1 or 3 phenomenas which has Google results is not that important to overtake the subject's main thrust of issue here, it can be discussed at length inside the article as reasons or motivators but the lead and the header must talk about the main issue at hand and thats the people discussed which are Baaly Tshuvah.--יודל 14:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
          • I don't know what you want! I have cited sources, books, articles and even the President of the United States that the Baal teshuva movement is known, recognized, watched, discussed, mentioned, studied and it exists. Google did not create that artificially! Google just helped us locate more sources for the usage of the term. In fact Google has many other sources but I have not use, such as blogs or newgroups which use the term Baal teshuva movement a lot more. So you your criticism holds no water. IZAK 15:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
            • • All those souces and citations to call the subject a movement is from POV sources, this is worth ziltch nada zip and the term movement should not be left in the header as 2 users are against 1 meanwhile about this.--יודל 16:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
                • Listen, first of all, we were not voting on policy, it was I who was looking for input and so far there has been very little from anyone besides me, all you seem able to do is shout a lot and to attack articles by slicing them up and then cutting and pasting materials from other articles all over the place...do you think people are blind to these meshugasin? Take a good look at WP:DEMOCRACY and you will see that Wikipedia is not a democracy and I answered all the points thoroughly. Since there was no response, beyond Gidonb saying he likes "chozer bitshuva" an obvious Israeli name that has nothing to do with Americans, I believe that everything now has been settled and is 100% kosher veyosher. Wikipedia is about writing GOOD articles and citing reliable sources which is what I did. That is NOT called "POV" rather I have bent over backwards to display true WP:NPOV! If anything, it is you that started messing around with this entire subject when you split up the original Baal teshuva article and moved the material to a new article called Orthodox Jewish outreach without consulting anyone. Then you get upset that I also am allowed to have input here as if you WP:OWN this territory, sheesh! And then you even had the chutzpa to insult me by saying that the only reason you were doing it was to mess up my work on Wikipedia. You are clearly in violation of many Wikipedia rules, like WP:DISRUPT, WP:EDITWAR, WP:NPA and many more, but I have been very patient with you, so don't preach to me about your crazy ideas about what is or isn't right when you have admitted more than once that you enjoy being a WP:VANDAL. I repeat, the Baal teshuva movement article is NOT "POV" it is a widespread term that has been used for decades by Jews and non-Jews alike. I don't know what planet you have been living on, and maybe it's because your main language is Yiddish, that you don't realize this. Every single one of the quotes in the article is in keeping with WP:CITE so don't give me your baloney that "this is worth ziltch nada zip" IZAK 17:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
                  • • There is no need for nobody to consult before opening up a new article, what happened, happened. Now we have 2 users who have very eloquently explained to u that the name movement is more POV then Chozer bisaleh. the sources at hand is not at all in place here, i agree with you that every name is POV and simply because the usage notates something its not a problem, but in a clear choice of 2 names one that is a metaphor and a judgment call on people, and one that is a name on a phenomena without any Judgment directly on its people should be a no brainier here. I know i am only 2 against 1 and it makes it sound as if this was a democratecy based decision, thats why i am waiting for more time to come into play here before we can move it to the proper name on a consensus outcome, although the creation of the name movement must be undone immediately since it was clearly done against consensus.--יודל 17:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Are the Bally thsuvahs a Movement?

This header was made by me to divide so many sections, everybody should help out in making it a better header--יודל 21:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What in heavens name are "Bally thsuvahs"? It reveals your utter disdain and mockery of the very subject you claim to have an interest in! IZAK 06:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you daring to destroy a good article again? Do not threaten me. The Baal teshuva movement article was written excellently with great care and it contains reliable sources from Jewish and non-Jewish books and personalities, and as I s even US President Ronald Reagan used it in speech quiting from Irving Kristol over twenty years ago. Look at every one of the sources and you will see that most of them come from books and reliable sources. The word "movement" will stay simply because it's used, printed and publicised all over the place by lots of reliable writers, researchers and academics (not to mention rabbis and even priests)! The only reason that I can imagine that you hate the word "movement" so much is that you want to destroy the entire movement on Wikipedia because you have your own pro-Christin missionary POV agenda, as you have told me many times about your love of Christian missionaries and what they do. Why else would anyone care about such a thing in any case? IZAK 18:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

we should care here about people. The Baaly Thsuva are real people we should not dismiss consensus like this, This grave breach of opening an article against consensus should be corrected, president Reagen cannot play more leverage then the wikipedia writers, i will study why he called them like this, see for the proper context and clarify if this wasn't a campaign deceleration to wooo in some orthodox voters who tend to be more pro r=Reagen then the liberal groups. Please provide a link here about your source and perhaps consensus will be changed as of now the word Movement is POV and the other word should be used.--יודל 18:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

We all care about people here at least as much as you do, who are you kidding? Everyone respects the Baalei teshuva (why don't you write their name right if you care about them so much??? just another example of your inconsistencies, to preach about caring for them at the same time as you couldn't care less how their name is spelled!) Look at all the sources in the article. It's not just the Reagan citation, and obviously it's not a question of him deciding anything, but rather the fact that the name Baal teshuva movement gets mentioned by him in speech to a Jewish group (and the Bnai Brith need a lot of outreach as we all know...) see these other citations in the article:

1. Rabbi Yosef Blau of Yeshiva University: A baal teshuva movement has emerged with a significant number of Jews from non-traditional homes returning to the observance of grandparents and great grandparents.
2. Professor Dana Evan Kaplan of University of Miami: in the 1970s. Orthodoxy began a remarkable revival, spurred on by the missionizing done by the Baal Teshuva movement among other Jews.
3. Rabbi Aharon Feldman of Yeshivas Ner Yisroel: there is a deep yearning for spiritual values. This yearning has taken on massive proportions as expressed in the baal teshuva movement.
4. Professor William Helmreich of Queens College: Baal teshuva movement noted as part of growth of Orthodoxy
5. Professor Timothy Miller of University of Kansas: academic research about the Baal teshuva movement
6. And last but not least, our best President Ronald Reagan quoting Irving Kristol: the rise of -- and I hope I get this right -- Baal Teshuva movement -- a powerful movement of Jews, young and old, Orthodox, Conservative, and Reformed, returning to the ancient ways of the faith.

So how much better can it get? with such rich and reliable sources confirming from all directions that the Baal teshuva movement exists as such and is called as such and that therefore it has been long-overdue for an article of its own because so much information about it can be found and stated loud and clear. IZAK 18:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

1. 1. and 3. are known rabbis that do indeed belong inside the Orthodox Jewish Outreach world. I know its his POV but it should not frame how a neutral encyclopedia names its subjects therefore the citation and source is good for inside the article that Orthodox Jews call it a Movement.
2. this is clearly about the orthodox Jewish outreach article which i agree is a movement. this isn't at all about the Baally Tshuvah people themselves, the Rabbis are clearly working in one movement with a common goal involved, but the returenees are not a movement. and this citation does not talk about them.
3. see number 1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yidisheryid (talk • contribs) 19:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
4. only a passing mention as a name not at all referring strictly to the Bally Tshuvas but also to the other Orthodox people involved.
5. only a passing mention as a name which also does not talk about our strict field at hand. i agree that together with the rabbis and orgs we can also call them a Movement but not the lone subject of the Baly thsuvas.
6. i will study further but William Crystel is a conservative Jew who has some stock in this issue so him i will leave out and say that he cannot be brought as a source to establish a name on this he isn't neutral i will put him almost in the same place as number 1 and 2 on this.

Conclusion: a movement defines a certain group of people in one goal or mission the Baaly thsuvah are not a movement, the orthodox Jewish rabbis and organizations courting and running after the Bally tshuva are the movement so lets not have a separate article saying that the Bally Tshuvah without the Orthodox Jewish outreach is still a movement because for this no sources, nor citations are produced and consensus has it against such a strong POV name --יודל 19:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• You know it is pathetic to watch you twist and turn and defy every rule in the book. Are you saying that two leading rabbis cannot make a general observation about a social trend? I did not quote any rabbis, I cited one of the leaders of Yeshiva University that is one of the best secular colleges in the world, and the other is the head of one of the most enlightened yeshivas, the point being that they are in agreement with the rest of the world's academics. These are not "passing observations" as they are part of many serious subjects in serious books written by professors and you cannot just dismiss that with your flippancy. Furthermore a number of the sources stress that the larger trends and factors behind behind the movement are not just part of a topic realted to Orthodoxy but are also connected to Reform, Conservative and general American Jewry, and as President Reagansays it connects up with yet again with larger trends and movements in general American society, and it's there for anyone to read. And just to prove how careless you are, it is not "William Crystel" who was quoted by President Reagan, but his father Irving Kristol. Why do I even bother talking to you? IZAK 06:46, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Yes i am saying that Rabbis are not a source for non pov names when it comes to their religion. Absolutely, those sources although they are no question reliable and holy, they are indeed not third party and independent to these kinds of questions. Because they have to great an interest here, i don't say you should not use them in the article for what they can be used i only say that the name movement is in their biased interest such, but not in a neutral eye.
2. Re the secular sources i already told you they are not speaking about the Bally Thsuvahs alone, they write in large part about the Orthodox Jewish Outreach together with this article Baal teshuvah make up a movement, without this context it is false to say that the Bally Thsuvah alone comprise some movement, and you have yet to provide one source for this. Please desist in labeling them as such in a wikipedia name of an article against consensus.--יודל 13:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Other views:

Solution: Disambiguation

The best way is to have everything here but to have it as a Wikipedia:Disambiguation:

• Orthodox Jewish outreach that deals with Orthodoxy's roles, organizations and rabbis.
• Repentance in Judaism which is the clearest and most logical place for any discussion of teshuva and what a baal teshuva is or is not in Judaism and Jewish law.
• Baal teshuva movement is about the modern movement that deals with Jews from all over the world and from all walks of life and from all strata of societies returning to their (Jewish) heritage and roots and to Orthodox Judaism as well.

Thank you, IZAK 12:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No. Baal teshuvah movement is too much for a header before the term Baal teshuvah itself. as the above discussion, This is just like making the human article into a Disambiguation for Human nature and human movement. First we need an article on the term Baal Thsuvah then we can discuss the phenomena and the motivators and the movement and so on, even million articles this does not take away the need for one article on the subject of Baal Tshuvah.--יודל 14:00, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

A Baal teshuva can be anyone not just the people of the 1960s and 1970s etc. A Baal teshuva is a Halachik description of any Jew who does teshuva in any age or place or time (repentance and return to God and that is best handled in Repentance in Judaism its natural and correct place to be), as described in Rabbeinu Yonah's textbook for teshuva the Shaarei Teshuva and as the RAMBAM codifies it in Hilchos Teshuva in his definitive Mishneh Torah, and indeed it is well known that in Judaism, King David was considered to be the greatest Baal teshuva of all time, there are many other examples, so it's a huge mistake to limit or think of hijacking the term of Baal teshuva and use it just for secular people who become religious, because that would be false. The term Baal teshuva is too broad and while the article was around for a while as it was, there has always been the need to clarify and expand the matter which I have now done. I do not get what you are complaining about as I have done you and everyone a great favor! IZAK 15:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No article is too broad, and especially it cannot be used as reason to make it into a disambiguation. There is a special section called see also where the readers and the writers can be sent to the different more broader aspects of it. No article can be hijacked, this is now an article. It was. And it should stay, unless reason prevails that somehow it being an article is a hijacking of its meaning to limit it to a 1 term only half of its use, which isn't the case yet. The article is open to edit freely for everybody, 2 users have tangled here in the past and their case is up to the the administrators for judgment, one has agreed that he was disruptive and was blocked for 24 hours, thats me if you ask, the other one is still silent, but this has nothing to do with the article itself--יודל 15:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind that this is an article about the term alone, and that it also has a "See also" for Baal teshuva movement and for Repentance in Judaism as separate articles. Don't mix in discussions about who is blocked as I don't like getting distracted by useless and timewasting curveballs when I am working on serious writing and editing of important articles. Stick to discussing the CONTENT of articles only, never mind personalities and users who are pests and don't add to discussions but like to run around and sockpuppeteer! I worked long and hard to organize the material, especially the Baal teshuva movement article which makes it quite clear why it is not part of Orthodox Jewish outreach (which implies the work of Orthodox rabbis and organizations only and therefore is not suitable as a general topic for a huge movement in Jewish history.) And aI have now mentioned, I don't mind having a narrow entry for the meaning of the words Baal teshuva alone with the "See also", altho I do think that the notion of Baal teshuva should be explained and dealt with in the Repentance in Judaism article. So what is all the fuss about now? IZAK 16:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The fuss is on the history of this talk page, tricks were done to the content to win the discussion about the content with unheard manipulation of the content, if we want to forget it is up to us, but the fuss was here, is here and it wont be forgotten so easy and fast. as many question marks the worlds typewriters will have the talk here will be crystal clear for all to see--יודל 16:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The fuss?

This header was made by me to divide so many sections, everybody should help out in making it a better header--יודל 21:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know anything about that or about tricks, I am a straight person. Can we concentrate on the subject here please and don't get sidetracked, ok! Hello? IZAK 16:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Since only one guy says and asks that he forgot the fuss here, thus somebody refresh the history, 1. How a seperete article was opened against consensus. 2. How content from Jewish outreach was dumped in here, 3. How all this was used to block a user, 4. How the discussion now is being held from the proper article and a question is being asked what the fuss is all about, and so fourth a fuss which is all bout its content, for a better chronicle of events how this was all played out to manipulate content its not proper to reply to him publicly, there is email for this reason. Meanwhile until the fuss is clear it should be corrected by somebody--יודל 17:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Since I was the one who sought the "consensus" (actually more like looking for input on the talk page, it was not a formal vote or procedure and no-one really cares about it it seems except you and me) to create the Baal teshuva movement article in the first place to see what others would say, and only two people responded, and I replied to them in great detail, so a new article was created,mazel tov and woopie doo that happens a thousand times a day on Wikipedia. And please do not involve me or imply that the present discussion was in any way part of you being blocked in the past. You just love bringing in stuff that has nothing to do with content and waste a lot of people's time with arguments and accusations. If any user is blocked it's NOT for the way they write or don't write articles, it's for the way they behave. The Baal teshuva movement article is almost entirely a new article. It was you who created the destruction of the original Baal teshuva article when you broke off most of the original Baal teshuva article and moved almost all its content to the Orthodox Jewish outreach article. You have admitted to me that it's part of your campaign to "destroy" my work on Wikipedia and that puts you in violation of WP:TROLL or worse, so kindly stop pretending to be the "victim" when you are the aggressor. So don't confuse everyone, we have a memory. My view is that it is a good idea to have the Orthodox Jewish outreach article. And there should also be articles about Reform Jewish outreach and Conservative Jewish outreach because they are also part of the Baal teshuva movement equation even though the Reform and Conservative efforts go against Halacha in many ways. Thus I voted to keep it, but of course after you created it, you voted to delete it, which really opens up those questions about your motives and the way you function. Didn't you think that editors would ask: Why did you take so much stuff out of the original Baal teshuva article, dump it in a new article and then vote to have the new article deleted? Do you think people are stupid? It is for that sort of WP:DISRUPTive behavior that you were blocked. You did a similar thing with the AJOP article, whereby first you create something on a topic and when it is quickly nominated for deletion you agree that it should be deleted. So what was behind that? Is it normal behavior to create articles, see them nominated for deletion and vote to delete one's own work? It is that kind of behavior that gets you in trouble and your smokescreen arguments here that somehow something "wrong" is being done if material is being organized in the unique topics, that it is somehow "wrong" because you don't like it, has no credibility or validity. I am sure glad you don't run Wikipedia because it would be total confusion. IZAK 07:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Yes you are right nobody has to convine a parliament session to open and create articles, but if something like this was done, and 2 users have expressed that the name is POV, you had no right to open it with that name. Consensus is the name of the game and you showed the other contempt to it, nobody has done it before here in wikipedia, if yes i belieave he was bocked, i don't report you for ANI becaouse i belieave you are a valued editor and since you want me blocked it is improper for me to complain. I have a conflict of interest with you so my desire to shut you up is not wikipedias problem as of yet.
2. This page was used to block me.
3. You were never the issue here neither did i at any time and place say so.
4. Nobody had any or has or will have any argument that the outreach work does not belong here.
5. I voted to delete the outreach stuff since it was against basic wikipedia policy it had no sources establishing its Notability, all it had was hundreds of inside Kiruv blogs and websites dealing with Kiruv, those aren't third party independent sources. I created it becaouse in my world it is Notable, but as i have come to realize that wikipedia is not a Jewish Encyclopedia and all subjects which cannot be found its place in the broader worldly Encyclopedia has no place here.
6. Never did i dump anything look at the history and see how much work i put in there.
7. No i was not blocked because of the outreach article look up the history and see that i was blocked because of this article we are now debating.
8. AJOP: Look for an explanation in number 5. same here.--יודל 13:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Orthodox Jewish outreach unlike other Jewish outreach?

This header was made by me to divide so many sections, everybody should help out in making it a better header--יודל 21:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I was going to say above that I believe that someone should take the time to write up articles about Reform Jewish outreach and Conservative Jewish outreach because they both have a lot of efforts going in that department. The Reform though broaden and define "outreach" as reaching out to the non-Jewish spouses of their intermarried members as well as to reaching out to gays (homosexuals) and to non-Jews and try to get them to become Jews. Oh, and I think that Conservative outreach is often based on reaching out to the Reform movement to win their acceptance as they copy-cat everything the Reform movement does and run away from Orthodoxy. But there is a lot that they are all doing that is not getting enough discussion -- and most importantly it is directly connected to the Baal teshuva movement because all their efforts are in response to the same grassroots desires of the people and whatever happens in their circles has a direct ripple effect on the Baal teshuva movement as a whole. So this is not about "pure" teshuva, because quite obviously what the Reform are doing by "reaching out" to non-Jews and gays for example is outright anti-Halachik and is denounced by Orthodoxy, yet the Reform think that they are doing "kiruv" and help people "come close" to acceptance as gays and as gentiles, when often the Reform clergy will work in opposite directions to Halachik Judaism as they do with Christian and Muslim ministers in interfaith marriage ceremonies. So it gets complex. This situation is different to what is going on in Israel because over there, there is no Reform and Conservative presence unlike the USA where Reform and Conservatism dominate American Jewry for better or worse. Which brings me to another point, and that is that Messianic Judaism also defines itself as doing "Jewish" "outreach" as a trick (but sadly a sincere belief and conviction to them) that they are doing real "outreach" to bring Jews to believe in Jesus and Christianity. The reason I mention this is because what the missionaries are doing also has an effect and quite often because of the innocent, naive and genuine desires of secular Jews to return to Judaism, they by mistake or purpose get ensnared by Christian missionaries out to prey on their vulnerabilities (mainly a lack of true knowledge about serious Judaism and what the Torah is truly about). At any rate, the Baal teshuva movemenet has to somehow deal with this phenomenon of the Jews for Jesus issue because of the commonality of the way that people are drawn to religion and to Yidishkeit but instead of getting home safe to home base they find that they have been tricked and cheated of their Jewish heritage and they land up as Christians instead of as Jews. Lots of thinking to do here and don't waste my or your time with distractions about who gets blocked or whatnot. IZAK 16:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This is false that only reform or conservative reach out to gays and Christians. Most orthodox Jewish outreach phenomena is wide open and non-judgmental they except and work with all kinds of people no matter their background or sins, many orthodox groups have joined Christians in furthering a goal of love peace religion and everything which is rooted in their common shared beliefs. true their are some voices trying to hinder the outreach movements by upholding a fighting and Anti feeling but by and large those voices are perfectly orchestrated to apply only to halt Yetzia bish'eila since every road has 2 ways, but it has never raised in any way to regulate or to halt the Outreach. the overall Moto in these outreach projects are a Jew is a Jew and we they are all obliged and responsible to bring back their brethren. The orthodox Jews see in this some higer goal just like all Christians and other missionaries, with one goal and mission in mind, to make all Jews like them.--יודל 20:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

What is false? You are confusing things again. I was noting that the Reform type of outreach emphasises reaching out to interfaith couples and to children of non-Jewish mothers. The Orthodox outreach efforts do not emphasise that, they are still reaching out to Halachik Jews" most of the time, but of course they will work with and welcome any person from an interfaith marriage or a gay person and try to help them do teshuva ("repentance") but they know it's not so easy, so for the meanwhile they deal with "easier" situations. Your statement that "many orthodox groups have joined Christians in furthering a goal of love peace religion and everything which is rooted in their common shared beliefs" is false because it just does not happen. There is actually a prohibition among the Haredi Orthodox, a ruling issued in 1956 by the leading Orthodox rabbis, that it is FORBIDDEN for Orthodox rabbis to join with Conservative and Reform rabbis in any sort of joint religious organizations, so there is certainly no allowance to work with Christian clergy and certainly not to join in religious ceremonies, such as many of the Reform clergy do when they join with Christian priests and ministers to perform mixed-faith marriages between Christians and Jews, something all Orthodox people view as an outright catastrophe and part of a the modern Silent Holocaust. But by far your most troubling comment is when you state: "The orthodox Jews see in this some higer goal just like all Christians and other missionaries, with one goal and mission in mind, to make all Jews like them." Besides being ambiguous as who wants "to make all Jews like them" which may be taken to mean that perhaps you are suggesting that it's ok that Jews may become the victims of Christian missionaries who may want to make them "like them" into Christians, what is even worse is to view the processes of two different and even clashing religions (on the level of ideas) as being the same, as you state: "The orthodox Jews see in this some higer goal just like all Christians and other missionaries" -- and the question is if that is just your POV which you are entitled to or are you saying that it's "ok" for everyone to "agree" that Orthodox Jewish outreach is the just the "same" as Christian Evangelism and Christian missionary work? So that then there would be no difference between Judaism and Christianity according to such a view and that would automatically make the one who holds to such a view into a true Jewish Christians or Jew for Jesus and there is not a single Orthodox rabbis on this planet who has ever condoned such a conclusion or state of affairs because when all is said and done two opposites cannot be combined when they oppose each so much in so many ways, in spite of the "lovey-dovey" words that anyone one may try to use to cover up such an inherent contradiction. How can you be editing articles about Orthodox Judaism and Jewish topics in good faith when you express the view that in essence Orthodox Jewish outreach and Christian evangelism are the same thing? In the first place, Orthodox outreach is to Halachik Jews almost exclusively, but Christian mssionaries try to convert the world, and of course they have a special eye out to convert unsuspecting Jews. Secondly, Orthodox Jewish outreach aims to brings Jews back to observing the Torah, keeping the mitzvot and believing in God whereas Christianity has only one goal, to get people to believe in Jesus and the trinity. Thirdly, since the advent of Christianity, the Christians have killed millions of Jews because the Jews refused to accept Christianity in any way. But for 2000 years the Christians have not succeeded and the Jews have survived, even to rebuild their national home in Israel after two thousand years, something that not all Christians, especially the Catholic Church agrees with. IZAK 08:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Reform just like Orthodox reach out to everybody, including interfaith couples.
2. Interfaith coupes are indeed, one spouse of them, the same Jews as any other Jew. And their kids depending on which parent is the Jew - if the Mother is the Jew - the kids are the same Jews as all other kids in the Jewish nation, most Orthodox Jewish outreach schools around the world are indeed filed with kids who aren't Jewish, only for one goal to bring back their families to Judaism even though they are an interfaith family.
3. Yes their is some prohibition on interfaith work but by in large this ruling is not excepted when it comes to Outreach, fact is if you care to look up in google you will find that Many many groups are involved in joined efforts with other religions to spread their shared goal. As i said before those anti and secluded voices are meant for the inner Jews they should not get involved in other religions causes, but when the context is right and warrants cooperation it indeed happens all the time. Look at International Fellowship of Christians and Jews to see more about this.
4. I myself have condemned and fought Christians, but at the same token i have fought Zionists and i have fought the Jewish Orthodox Outreach cause. so my personal opinion does not in any way shape or form come into play here to make this medium biased. My POV should not be translated as if i want Wikipedia to fight my cause, i am here in wikipedia to fight for what my POV sees a biased POV of others, i am not alone here and i hope with many other users we can reach a consensus in the middle for whats the best Neutral truth is, if this cannot be reached their is no hope for a Neutral wikipedia, because no man in the world can say he does not have a biased opinion on the thinks he is close too in life, my honesty should in no way make me somehow less credible then others denial. Now that all POV's is on the table lets not fool ourselves all kinds of religious activists who want to outreach to others have a higher mission they are not doing it on some selfish motives alone, they are also driven by their Religion that their truth about life is the fundamental truth. Denial isn't healthy in Wikipedia.
5. Your words against the Christians are a hundred percent true and i will not use this talk page to further these points.--יודל 14:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Does the Yetzia bish'eila phenomena come into this talk page?

I myself created this above header, to divide the too lengthy discussion, please feel free to edit out--יודל 15:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. The whole Yetzia bish'eila thing is a bit of a red herring in this discussion because, while it is valid and interesting topic, it is not the same thing as the subject of teshuva and the Baal teshuva movement and it's not a case of a "road having two ways" whatever that means. It's not like having a choice between red wine and white wine. The whole idea that there is a "Baal teshuva vs. Yotzei bish'eila" issue is a false construct and highly POV. The thrust of the Baal teshuva movement applies ONLY to assimilated, secular, non-religious, and even anti-religious Jews, sometimes part of Reform and Conservative familes as in the US, moving towards greater observance of Judaism and even finally becoming Orthodox. The situation in Yetzia bish'eila (it's an Israeli notion) is when Jews who were born mostly Haredi decide to drop out of Orthodox Judaism and even fight it. Think of it in another way: Universities recruit students and many of those studenst then become graduates and alumni. Sometimes though there are students who have been in that university but they decide to drop out. As far as the university is concerned, it is ONLY in the business of recruiting, educating and training its students. Once the students graduate the university is proud to list them, name them, and honor them as graduates and ALUMNI. Not so in the case of students who have dropped out of the university, they are not given awards and recognition for dropping out of college and not sticking with the program. No university is proud of such people and they really do not amount to a hill of beans as far as the official institution is concerned and no normal person really cares who the dropouts are because they do not matter to the university whereas the graduates who stuck it out and practice what they were taught become notable and retain a lifelong connection with their alma mater. This is just an illustration, but the main point is that with Yetzia bish'eila one is dealing with individuals who came from 100% Orthodox homes and yet they dropped out practicing Orthodoxy for whatever reasons. It is also not a significant historical movement, mostly a hysterical reaction by leftists in Israel against religion noted by the anti-religious Israeli media who love to gloat on any seeming Haredi slip-up. Only in Israel! On the other hand the Baal teshuva movement is a world-wide historical movement with Jews from all parts of society, that for fifty years has seen many thousands of formerly non-religious Jews start a spiritual, religious, cultural and geographical journey, often-times they don't even know where it will take them, and at the end of it all there are thousands who become Orthodox, and there is no "one way" to explain it because it comes from so many directions. IZAK 08:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

1. I agree this should not be here in this talk page but only you had stated this discussion after a third user brought it here for a small side point. Now that it is here the facts should be straightened out.
2. The Bally Tshuvahs themselves are never referred to a Movement and neither should the previously Orthodox Jews be called a Movement.
3. This is a lie that somehow the Baaly tshuvahs are more then the heretics who change their life style. This is ridicules even to start counting the numbers, Because more the 90 percent of the Jewish nation isn't even Orthodox, so indeed it isn't possible to compare it in real people but in the relevant analogy stays the phenomena of going out is more common then coming in.
4. This isn't at all an Israeli phenomena the word comes from Hebrew just like the word Ball tshuvah, This happens all the time in America, in Europe where ever there are Orthodox Jews.
5. The newspapers in America do indeed cover them, i have read in the Jewish week and in the forward numerous articles about this phenomena, what do u want that the Orthodox Jewish paper should report about this?! Please remind yourself that recently a book was published about this phenomena that gathered world wide attention, called the Chosen.
6. I beg you stop slandering them here, they are not in any way shape or form Drop outs. I know you just following here the orthodox line is that the are all drop outs but please do not insult living people, your POV on this should not be written down here, because then you have to consider that the Reform will not hesitate to call those orthodox Bally thsuvas drop outs, and believe me there is no shortage of Bally thsuvah causing great trouble to Judaism. i know we have Jonathan Rosenblum and a few more respected figures but they are indeed a very small minority, for every intelligent Bal thsuva i will match you 5 intelligent Choizry bishielah, point is lets not go into motives here.--יודל 16:00, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect for deletion, Chazara bish'ela is pure OR

Regarding Chazara bish'ela → Yetzia bish'eila, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 October 3#Chazara bish'ela → Yetzia bish'eila. Thank you, IZAK 11:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not OR. --יודל 13:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Typical, nu?

Five Jews, 13 opinions, lol. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 04:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Rather than build up parallel Hebrew/English versions, the HatNoted stub named Baal Tehuva might find a better home within Main Article Repentance in Judaism. Yunmagz (talk) 21:37, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Propose to merge Baal teshuva movement into this article. Both articles cover the same topic, albiet incompletely. Combining the two will covered the topic more coherently and more completely. Longhornsg (talk) 21:47, 5 January 2024 (UTC)